Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HAVANT AND WATERLOO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether Mrs. F. P. Roy, No. 52508586 is entitled to an increased old age pension; and if he will expedite payment of arrears accumulating for several months past.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Mrs. Roy is entitled to have her old age pension at the rate of 4s. a week increased to 6s. a week. Immediate steps are being taken to provide her with a pension order book at the 6s. rate, and to make any necessary adjustment in respect of arrears.

Sir R. Young: Would the right hon. Gentleman let me know why Mrs. Roy is entitled only to 6s. a week?

Mr. Griffiths: This is one of the classes of modified pensions, which I carried through. I will send a letter to my hon. Friend explaining the matter fully to him.

Sir John Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that old age pensioners go on writing to his Department month after month, and get only forms of acknowledgment?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. The Department has had an enormous job to do. I have reorganised it. I am very anxious to cut out these delays as quickly as I possibly can.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance the reason for the delay in dealing with the correspondence from Mr. Upfold, 28 Cherry Walk, Hayes, Kent, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The arrears of pension due to the late Mr. and Mrs. Upfold have now been issued. I much regret the delay in dealing with the correspondence from Mr. Upfold, Junior, and I am having a full inquiry made into the circumstances. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this correspondence has been going on since August, 1946? Will he make an example in this case, and take disciplinary action against the bureaucrat responsible for this inhuman treatment?

Mr. Griffiths: I will have full inquiries made and, if necessary, take action.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of Parliament are inundated with complaints about these delays? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps, it is that people suffering in this way have the sense to write to Conservative Members of Parliament. Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to see that people do not suffer unnecessary hardship?

Mr. Griffiths: I certainly am aware of these delays, and I am anxious to do all I can to remove them. May I put this consideration to all Members? I put this pension basis into operation quickly—as quickly as I could. I could have used the old machinery designed for the old pension basis, instead of waiting for the new machinery. But as a result of my action millions of pensioners are entitled to the improved pensions.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is very much better to take up these cases privately, than it is to waste the time of the House in dealing with these individual cases?

Mr. Speaker: The Question concerned correspondence from Mr. Upfold, and not the subject of correspondence, generally.

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of National Insurance what additional charge would fall on the insurance fund if those between 65 and 70 years of age who continue in regular employment were allowed to draw the old age pension at the full rate of 26s. per week.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The additional charge under the existing pensions scheme in respect of male pensioners between 65 and 70 with wives not insured in their own right would be about £14 million a year at the present time. The additional charge under the new pensions scheme which is shortly to come into operation would be about £16 million a year at the outset, rising to about £26½ million a year after ten years.

Mr. Baker White: Does not the Minister think, in view of the fact that many craftsmen, particularly in agriculture, are over 65, that it would be worth while to pay these old age pensioners at the full rate of benefit, even if they remain in full work?

Mr. Griffiths: That point will be dealt with in my answer to the Question today by the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton).

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Foreign Domestic Workers

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Labour why he has withdrawn the restrictions, based on the type of household and number of staff employed, in respect of the issue of permits to foreign domestic workers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The Government recently decided, in view of labour shortages in general, to admit aliens more freely for employment in this country. It was found that the restriction of permits resulted in many cases in the type of household urgently needing domestic workers being unable to obtain them.

Mr. Piratin: While not objecting to any one needing domestic servants getting them, may I ask if it is not a fact that this arrangement will mean that those households which now have sufficient domestic servants will be able to get more without any restriction whatever?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir; it does not necessarily follow. Most of these people will not be competing in the home market.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask whether it is not a fact that this House, sometimes in the second generation, has benefited from arrangements of this kind?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, when a Question has been put and answered by the Minister, for an hon. Member of this House to make such an offensive reference?

Mr. Speaker: I did not think there was anything offensive about it.

Mr. Keeling: Is it not right to leave the number of domestic servants necessary in any particular case to the employer, who cannot possibly afford to engage more than are necessary, and is not a Government Department in the worst possible position to decide how many servants are necessary in a particular household?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that, in the very difficult circumstances over the last 12 months, the Government ought to exercise some control in this matter. However, in order to ease the position generally, I think the new method is one that will meet with approval.

Displaced Persons

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Labour, taking into consideration the fact that a number of displaced persons are now entering this country and taking up work in various occupations, if he will consider the setting up of a properly authorised body specially to watch the interests of these workers and be prepared to advise them during the initial period of their residence in this country.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The general welfare of these workers has been made the responsibility of my Department's welfare organisation and the National Hostels Corporation who will give all the help and advice they can. The assistance offered by a number of voluntary bodies has also been welcomed.

Mr. Harrison: Does not the Minister think that the responsibility varies, and that it might, in the main, be better if it was concentrated in one responsible authority?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As the authority is now concentrated in the Ministry of Labour, I think that meets my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Beswick: Is there any limit to the occupations to which these people may go?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that is another question.

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour by what date he estimates that his forecast of 4,000 displaced persons per week will be arriving in this country; and what is the total number of displaced persons that he plans to bring to this country in 1947 and 1948, respectively.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The aim is to work up, if possible, to this rate during the course of next month, but its achievement will depend upon such factors as the numbers of suitable persons volunteering who can be accommodated and absorbed into employment here. Similar factors will determine the total numbers to be brought here over a longer period.

Major Beamish: Surely, the Minister can say how many will come in during 1947? Why is it that this Government of superplanners has no plan for the employment of foreign labour this year?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have read the White Paper on the Economic Survey.

Major Beamish: Of course, I have.

Joiners, Falmouth

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Labour if any substantial degree of unemployment is being caused to members of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers in the Falmouth area on account of the shortage of timber; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I understand that 40 joiners were discharged by a Falmouth shipbuilding firm last week on account of shortage of timber. Efforts are being made to place these men in outstanding vacancies in the building trade in the area or in other suitable work.

Mr. King: Is the Minister aware that the number is likely to increase under present arrangements, and will he consider

using his influence, as was done once before, in having a ship sent to that dockyard with the co-operation of the Admiralty?

Mr. Isaacs: That is entirely another question, and, if my hon. Friend will put it down, I will see what can be done by my Department.

Trade Practices (Restoration)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement as to the anticipated effect upon production of the fixing of a date during the year for the purposes of the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act, 1942.

Mr. Isaacs: When I stated on 20th December that I had decided, by agreement with the Joint Consultative Committee of the National Joint Advisory Council, to fix a day some time in December, 1947, as the end of the war period for the purposes of the Restoration of PreWar Trade Practices Act, I made it clear that it was essential that the two sides of any industry affected should consider the matter in the meantime with a view to reaching joint agreement on the problems involved. I have no doubt that this will be done, and I am confident that the need for maximum production will be fully borne in mind in the course of any joint negotiations.

Older Ex-Servicemen

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many exServicemen, particularly ex-officers, aged 45 years and over, have been unable to find employment, although demobilised more than 12 months ago; and what special steps he proposes to take to obtain employment for them.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. But employment can only be found for these men if employers will refrain from imposing unduly low age limits on the vacancies which they notify. To this end, advertisements have been inserted in weekly and daily newspapers calling attention to the value of the experience possessed by older men, and the advice of my Appointments Department Advisory Council has been sought.

Mr. Collins: While wishing to pay a very considerable tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman's Department


in this matter, may I ask whether consideration has been given to the possibility of directing the attention of Government Departments to the use of these men, many of whom have high ability and considerable administrative experience?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no information that any Government Department has imposed such a limit, and if my hon. Friend has any information of that kind, I will be glad to take the matter up.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-Servicemen are unemployed at the present time?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the undesirability of the limit which he is imposing, and ask if he cannot make it possible for many of these men who wish to do so to continue their careers in the Army?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no doubt that the fact of the hon. Member putting that question will have its effect.

Trainees

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of men who have qualified at his Department's training courses held at Ipswich and Luton are unable to find employment, are losing the skill they acquired as trainees and, in some cases, are seeking to return to the Armed Forces; and if he will take all measures possible to provide some assurance that training will be followed by employment.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware that a small proportion of the men leaving the Ipswich and Luton centres have not yet been able to secure employment. The difficulties in placing have been due to the shortage of timber or the fact that the trainees have been unable to leave home for employment. I can assure the hon. Member that, in consultation with the industry, I am continuing to do everything possible to see that the numbers trained are related to future employment prospects.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of discussing the matter with the respective trade unions, because many

ex-trainees, when they get jobs, find that they are boycotted by others who are members of trade unions, and who make it impossible for these men to continue at work when they get a job?

Mr. Isaacs: My experience is very much to the contrary, and I should be most grateful if—in fact, I would insist that—the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give me particulars of these cases. Up to now, I have found that the trade unions have been most co-operative in taking these men.

Mr. Drayson: Is the Minister aware that the reply which he has given is the same as he gave to me the other day? Is he aware that, within the last few minutes, I have been talking to a large employer of building labour in London and the provinces, who tells me he cannot employ these trainees because other building workers on the site will not work with them, and will the Minister include in his consultations the Building Trades Advisory Council?

Mr. Isaacs: Of course, I am not aware of the conversation which the hon. Gentleman had a few minutes ago, and I should be glad if he would give me the name of that employer so that these allegations can be traced down. As to the Advisory Council, they have been most co-operative in this matter, and are an outstanding example of willingness to help in taking these trainees.

Mr. John Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulty in these matters does not arise from a breach of faith by the trade unions, but because of irresponsible elements among the men concerned, who are not prepared to recognise the agreements?

Mr. Isaacs: Equally with the other allegations, I have no such information, and no instance of that kind has been brought to my attention.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the Minister has said that he is prepared to trace down these allegations, whatever that may-mean, will he give an assurance that he will cause an immediate investigation to be made and take immediate action in the matter?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. Those who make the accusations ought to be called upon to justify them, instead of sending the


Ministry of Labour chasing all over the country to find out if there is any truth in them.

21. Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether the arrangements made for the instruction and subsequent employment of trainees under the Government's Resettlement Scheme were discussed and agreed upon with the trade unions and employers concerned in the trades provided for.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what arrangements exist between the training centres and the employment exchanges and employers to ensure that trainees who have completed their course of instruction under the Resettlement Scheme are absorbed into industry without avoidable delay;
(2) whether he is aware that some trainees who have completed their instruction under the Government's Resettlement Scheme are finding difficulty in obtaining employment and what steps are being taken to overcome the difficulty.

Mr. Isaacs: The majority of trainees have been satisfactorily placed in employment on completion of their training. Training facilities in each trade are kept under regular review in consultation with the representatives of the industry concerned, and are expanded or curtailed as necessary, so that they are related as closely as possible to future employment prospects. Recent adverse weather conditions and shortages of material have caused difficulties in some cases. Action to place trainees is commenced at the training centres, at least one month before completion of training. Where the trainee has not been placed before leaving the centre, full particulars are sent to the regional office of my Department who, in cooperation with representatives of the industry, and with the assistance of the local employment exchange, continue action to ensure that the trainee is placed as soon as possible.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say whether he has received a letter from the Union of Building Trade Workers asking him to close down these training establishments?

Mr. Isaacs: That question does not arise out of the one on the Order Paper.

Foreign Labour

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour which trade unions have agreed to the employment of foreign labour and with what conditions; which trade unions have refused to accept foreign labour of any nationality other than ex-enemy nationality; and with which trade unions negotiations are still in progress.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No trade union has finally refused to accept foreign labour of any nationality. The terms of the numerous agreements on the subject vary widely, and could not be explained in a reply to a Question. Negotiations are in progress in a number of industries with a view either to the making of an agreement or the extension of an existing one.

Mr. Erroll: The Minister has said that no trade union has finally refused. Can he say whether any trade union has temporarily refused?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Some negotiations have been delayed on account of the fuel position.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the Minister lay before Parliament the terms of the agreements, which vitally affects the liberty of the subject?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The terms of some agreements, particularly that with the Miners' Federation, have already been announced in the House in answer to a Question. Whether or not it is desirable to place on the Table all the agreements, I do not know, but I think there would be no objection to supplying them. I will send a copy to the hon. Gentleman.

Coal Industry (Non-Industrial Staffs)

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the increase or decrease in nonindustrially employed persons who will be employed by the Coal Board and the Ministry of Fuel and Power in 1948 as compared with those similarly employed in 1938 by His Majesty's Government and private enterprise.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that I have no information on which to base such an estimate.

Brigadier Mackeson: Why on earth does not this miserable Government smarten itself up and take the trouble to obtain


the requisite information concerning the deployment of our manpower? Could not the Government for a change write a proper appreciation and a long-range plan?

Oral Answers to Questions — STUDENTS (RELEASE)

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Minister of Labour what would be the overall delay in the present release scheme if students and trainees engaged upon accepted courses were called up on the completion of their course instead of in the middle of it as is often the case under present regulations.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The only cases in which deferment of call-up for the duration of a recognised course is refused, are those where students cannot retain their places at a university or other institution, or where they are not up to the required standard to complete the course. While the effect on the release scheme would be small if they were all granted deferment, it would be wrong to do so.

Mr. Levy: Will my right hon. Friend consider cases which I have sent him, and about which we have already been in correspondence, which seem to disprove his original thesis?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The position is that no student who has jumped a claim is allowed to remain in the university if it means the exclusion of a man who has been in the Forces. The other category are those who fail at their examination, and whom, on the advice of the chancellor of the university, we have called up. Those are the only two types of cases.

Mr. Levy: This matter does not refer only to university courses, but to others. There are cases where youngsters have been yanked off in the middle of their course, and not allowed to complete it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer my hon. Friend to my original answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Confirmation of Executors Act

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider amending the Confirmation of Executors (War Service) (Scotland) Act, 1940, to

enable confirmations to be granted on a certificate by the Colonial Office.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the hardship being experienced by the widows and families of men who served in the Colonial forces and who subsequently died in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps, on account of their inability to complete title as executors owing to the fact that under the existing law the Colonial Office is not designated as a competent authority; and whether he will introduce amending legislation at an early date.

Mr. Gilzean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to amend the Confirmation of Executors (Scotland) Act, 1940, so as to enable the widows, children and other relatives of Scotsmen who served in the colonial forces and who are presumed to have died while prisoners of war to secure such confirmation.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): The Confirmation of Executors (War Service) (Scotland) Act, 1940, provides facilities for confirmation of executors of persons missing during the "war period," which ended on the 24th February, 1946,. on the expiration of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. I appreciate that there are cases where difficulty has arisen in the operation of the Act, but, in present circumstances, I could not undertake to introduce amending legislation.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would not a single-Clause Bill meet the case, and clear up these outstanding cases of hardship?

The Lord Advocate: There are other difficulties, besides merely bringing in a single-Clause Bill, in a number of cases required to be dealt with by the Colonial Office. If one started to deal with those cases, others might ask for similar concessions, and that is where the difficulty would arise.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the present system causes inconvenience, delay and expense to next of kin, and will he devise some other means of making representations?

The Lord Advocate: We will see whether anything can be done from the administrative point of view.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Cannot a Bill be introduced in another place to deal with this matter?

Prison Rules

26. Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the draft Prison (Scotland) Rules, 1947, dated 2nd April, 1947, are not in accord with modern ideas of prison reform, particularly relating to education, training, books and employment; and if he will reconsider them before they come into force with a view to modernising them.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): No, Sir. The rules require education, training, books and employment to be provided, but do not attempt to prescribe in detail the provision to be made. Prison methods are continually advancing, and I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that it would be unwise to stabilise these methods, and so arrest advance, by defining them in detail in statutory rules.

Mr. Hector Hughes: When considering these rules, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the aim of the prison system should be reform, as well as punishment and prevention?

Mr. Westwood: That is exactly what I have kept in mind, and that is the reason I have given the answer.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rules will be laid before the House before they are confirmed?

Mr. Westwood: Not without notice.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend look particularly at the rules relating to untried prisoners?

Mr. Westwood: Certainly, Sir.

Stacathro Aerodrome

28. Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to say what use is to be made of Stacathro aerodrome in the future.

Mr. Westwood: Stacathro aerodrome is at present being farmed under arrangements made by the local agricultural executive committee. The airfield is no longer required by the Air Ministry, and it

is proposed to transfer it to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland so that arrangements can be made for its long-term agricultural use.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this tranfer will be made to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and has he not in the past said that it would be transferred, although the transfer has not taken place?

Mr. Westwood: Yes, Sir, but it is impossible for us to carry through the transfer at the moment. These problems will be dealt with in the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill, which I hope to introduce later this Session.

Agriculture (Vacuum Flasks)

29. Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what principle he allocates permits for vacuum flasks to local secretaries of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Westwood: The allocation of "Thermos" flask permits for distribution by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland is made to the headquarters of the union, with whom rests the responsibility for distribution to local secretaries.

Mr. Macpherson: Does the Minister know whether the union is kept aware of the number of flasks available in the various localities, because there seems to be little correlation of supplies?

Mr. Westwood: We have arranged what we think is the best method of distribution to both union and non-union members. We also have an arrangement whereby the National Farmers' Union can deal with applications made to them by their own members.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that while there is difficulty in some parts in getting these flasks, one has only to go to one of the big shops and pay 72s. 6d. to get two flasks in a wicker container?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

National Service Bill

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is now able to say whether men called up under the National Service Bill who sustain injuries whilst undergoing whole-time or part-time


service will be eligible for disability pensions under the existing war pensions instruments; and if there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal in the case of disputed claims.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): Certain aspects of the conditions of service of men to be called up under the National Service Bill are still under consideration, and it is, therefore, not yet possible to make any announcement as regards the matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

100 Per Cent. Disability

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Pensions how many exServicemen and women classified as 100 per cent. disabled are now only in receipt of the minimum pension of 45s. per week; how many are in receipt of supplementary allowances as well as the minimum pension; and whether he is aware that there is a growing feeling that the minimum pension is ungenerous.

Mr. J. Hynd: The numbers are about 15,000 and 34,000, respectively. The basic rate of 45s. was fixed in the light of comparable payments to be made under the various social service provisions, and taken in conjunction with the very wide range of additional allowances payable, and to the fact that the basic pension is paid irrespective of other earnings, the provisions now in force are widely recognised as representing a considerable advance on any previous arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (HANDICRAFTS)

34. Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the adoption of centralised arrangements for collecting and disposing of such handicrafts and other goods made by prisoners of war as would not compete with British goods, and arrange for the money resulting from these sales to be credited to the prisoners and issued to them on their repatriation.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any types of goods that he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider whether any arrangements can be made such as he suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Tubercular Patients, South Africa

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that Baragwanath British Military Hospital Johannesburg, has been taken over for other purposes; that, as a result, tuberculous British military patients there have been ordered immediately to return to England at risk to their lives; and if he will provide alternative hospital accommodation for them in South Africa, the climate of which is favourable to their recovery;
(2) if he is aware that 4276108 Gunner W. Plews, of Aberdeen, details of whose case have been sent to him, who contracted tuberculosis while serving with the Gordon Highlanders during the war, is, against his will and at danger to his life, under orders to travel immediately from Johannesburg to England although he is physically unfit to travel; and if he will countermand this order immediately so that Gunner Plews may be allowed to remain and given the opportunity of recovery in South Africa.

Sir Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to close Baragwanath Hospital, South Africa, in August, 1947, and to bring back the patients to this country, having regard to the possibility of another severe winter and the continued restrictions in heating and food which may have an adverse effect on the health of these patients, many of whom are suffering from tuberculosis; and if he will arrange for this hospital to remain open for at least another year.

Mr. Bellenger: These hospital buildings are shortly due to be handed back to the South African Government by whom they are urgently required as a hospital for South African tuberculosis patients. A number of the British military patients at present in the hospital have elected to take their discharge in South Africa. Of the remainder, those who are fit to make the journey will be brought to this country in a hospital ship specially equipped and staffed for this purpose. On arrival, those who still require treatment will be admitted to sanatoria near their homes. Patients who are not considered fit to travel will be transferred to other hospitals in South Africa. There is no question of a risk to


their lives. I am satisfied that, apart from those who wish to take their discharge in South Africa, the vast majority of the patients are anxious to return to this country and to be re-united with their families. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to trespass further than is necessary on the hospitality of the South African Government.
Gunner Plews has applied for discharge in South Africa but he is not eligible for this under South African Government health rules. Provided he is well enough to travel, he will be brought to the United Kingdom where he will either be discharged or admitted to a sanatorium, according to his condition. It is not the case that he is under orders at danger to his life to travel immediately to England, and I am advised that he is expected to be well enough to travel home by hospital ship. If this journey were to represent a danger to life, or if he were found to be in any way unfit for the journey, he would be kept in South Africa.

Mr. Hughes: What about those patients who are unwilling to be sent home? Are they not to be allowed to stay and take the benefit of the South African air, which is so beneficial to cases of tuberculosis? Will provision be made for them?

Mr. Bellenger: As I have said, most of these patients do not want to stay in South Africa. I have said that the few who do want to stay will be permitted to take their discharge in South Africa, and those who do not want to take their discharge in South Africa will be taken to other hospitals. We really cannot deprive the South African Government of this hospital for their own tuberculosis patients.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that henceforth there will be no overseas hospital facilities for the treatment of this disease in a suitable climate?

Mr. Bellenger: Medical opinion is not certain that the South African climate is so much better than the climate in parts of this country. What happened was that owing to the fact that these patients could not go through the Mediterranean they were sent to South Africa during the war, and the South African Government very kindly placed this hospital accommodation at our disposal. These men

will be very well looked after by the Army.

Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many years ago trade union leaders from South Africa suffering from phthisis and tuberculosis came to this country to help them to get cured? Where does the evidence come from that it is better for our people to go to South Africa to be cured?

Major Legge-Bourke: Bearing in mind the great shortage of accommodation in civil sanatoria for tuberculosis cases, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that none of these men will be transported back to this country until accommodation has been assured for them at this end?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, we are making arrangements to look after these men when they come back here. The Army are going to look after them, although really it is a liability, I think, of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Scollan: In the case of the men who may want to come out of hospital but are not quite fit to come back into civil life in this country, will provision be made for them to enter civil life in South Africa, the same as if they were coming home?

Mr. Bellenger: It is not a matter entirely for me. We should do, and, in fact, we have done all we can to get the help of the South African Government. They have been very generous, and I do not think the House need be in any fear that any of these men who stay there or who come home will suffer.

War Graves (Removal of Bodies)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War why the bodies of soldiers who die abroad on service are not brought back to this country when the relatives are prepared to meet the cost.

Mr. Bellenger: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 23rd October, 1945, in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), of which I am sending him a copy.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that since the


war men have died overseas, and in many cases their relatives are anxious to pay to bring their bodies back? Will he not look into this matter again, because it is causing great discontent?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I can hold out no hope that this matter will be reexamined. This policy has been followed not only by His Majesty's Government but by all the Governments in the Dominions since the first world war.

Palestine (Evacuated Families)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War where the families evacuated from Palestine are now accommodated; what type of accommodation this is; and what steps are being taken to provide permanent accommodation.

Mr. Bellenger: The military families evacuated from Palestine were given the option of returning to the United Kingdom. Of those who returned, 16 Regular other ranks' families who had no home to go to in the United Kingdom have been allotted married soldiers' quarters at Aldershot. Those who did not wish to return to this country are at present accommodated in camps in the Canal Area. The living accommodation consists of tents with hutted ancillary buildings. As the families will not be staying permanently in the Canal Area, it is not necessary to provide permanent accommodation. Plans are, however, in hand to accommodate them in huts before the hot weather.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all those who were temporarily accommodated in Folkestone have now left?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I cannot give that information in replying to this Question.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who were accommodated at Folkestone were gravely dissatisfied with the future prospects of getting accommodation in this country, and that, in particular, they were worried about the education of their children?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, I know there are considerable difficulties, but in our Department we have done everything possible to help these people.

Works Surveyors (Deferment)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of surveyors of works, R.E., have been deferred from release as being operationally vital, in the past 12 months; how many of these were or are in Palestine; how many will be under the same restriction in the next 12 months; how many surveyors of works, R.E., are Regular officers and holders of short-service commissions in both the United Kingdom and Palestine; and how long is compulsory deferment of release to continue.

Mr. Bellenger: Twelve per cent. of surveyors of works, R.E., have been deferred from release as being operationally vital in the past 12 months. All of these were in the Middle East, which includes Palestine; separate figures for Palestine are not available. I hope that compulsory deferment will not be applied after the next three months. Twentyseven Regular surveyors of works, R.E., and i holding a short service Regular commission, are serving at home; corresponding figures for the Middle East are 2 and I respectively.

Arrested Men (Release Period)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether time spent in absence, in close arrest, or in detention, can be restored for release purposes if the offender has a record of 12 months' good behaviour subsequent to his release from detention.

Mr. Bellenger: Such periods are not reckoned as service for release purposes if they exceed 28 days.

Mr. Wyatt: Would my right hon. Friend consider looking at this matter again to see whether it is possible to introduce some such system, particularly in order to encourage those who are absent to return?

Mr. Bellenger: We have offered very considerable inducements to those who are absent to return, and it has not been very successful. I have a suspicion that most of them do not want to return.

Personal Case

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Mile End can expect a reply to his letters of 18th and 26th February with regard to the treatment of Private A Curran, who, when suffering from pneumonia and, after


being discharged from hospital at Horley on 21st February, was given no rations for a journey from Horley to Edinburgh and who had to be treated by a civilian doctor who sent him to the King's College Hospital.

Mr. Bellenger: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 24th April. As explained in that letter, Private Curran was admitted to the hospital at Holley while on leave. Before his discharge he did not mention to the medical officer in charge of the ward that his unit was stationed in Edinburgh, nor did he ask for rations for the journey, though these were available. The medical officer was under the impression that, like the majority of soldiers admitted to the hospital, he belonged to a local unit. In any case, however, he did not attempt to return to his unit on 21st February, the date of his discharge, but went back to his home in London and consulted a private practitioner. The investigations carried out at King's College Hospital revealed no abnormality.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that the statement he has just made does not tally with the facts which I have received from the soldier himself, and cannot he and I go further into the matter together?

Mr. Bellenger: I can well believe the hon. Gentleman, but what the soldier says is not always evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO SMOKING (RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Shawcross: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to secure the prohibition of the smoking of tobacco during normal working hours in all premises where industry and commerce is carried on, and also at all times in theatres and cinemas.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I think that any attempt by the Government to prescribe where and when people may smoke might well have exactly the opposite effect from that which we all wish to achieve.

Mr. Shawcross: In view of the fact that we are up against it in this matter of dollars for tobacco, and that the proposal in question would cause those who have not cut down smoking to do so whilst helping those who have, will the Prime Minister consider making an appeal to

all concerned voluntarily to enforce such a rule?

The Prime Minister: An appeal is one thing, enforcement by the Government is another. The difficulty is that the hon. Member picks out certain occasions for not smoking, and that might be hard on the people affected as compared with those who have other methods of amusement.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the Prime Minister make an appeal to hon. Members of this House not to smoke in the non-smoking part of the Library?

Mr. Henry Usborne: Would the Prime Minister consider the advisability of prohibiting smoking in Underground trains? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I understand it is prohibited in the United States of America.

Mr. Shawcross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the need to reduce consumption of tobacco, he will prohibit smoking during normal working hours in all offices and establishments of Government Departments.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir. But my right hon. Friend hopes that, in the national interest, there will be a voluntary reduction in smoking, both in Government offices and elsewhere.

Mr. Shawcross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that incessant smoking by people working in Government offices creates an atmosphere of slackness and inefficiency, besides wasting tobacco; and would not those Departments set an example to the nation in the saving of tobacco?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend at least use his influence with the Minister of Transport to ensure that there is no more smoking in non-smoking carriages on the railways?

Mr. De la Bère: May we know whether the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) is a non-smoker?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Budget Revenue (Alternative Sources)

Sir William Darling: asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to move for a Select Committee of Members of the House of Commons to examine alternative sources of revenue to those in the 1947 Budget.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir.

Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman—whom I should like to be the first to welcome back to this House— aware that during his absence we have had a very unsatisfactory Budget, and that the public and this House are deeply concerned in finding alternative ways of raising revenue; and in view of those facts, is he aware that his reply will be very unsatisfactory, in my opinion?

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry to hear this sad news, but the hon. Member's suggestion is really quite unconstitutional, and comes very badly from the other side of the House.

Exchange Equalisation Fund

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position of the Exchange Equalisation Fund; where are the assets; what is their value: and what use is being made of them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As regards the first three parts of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 10th December last. As regards the last part, I would refer him to Section 63 of the Finance Act, 1946.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that none of the assets of the Exchange Equalisation Fund are being used to finance the disastrous policy of Socialism? Could I have an answer?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.

Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Member thinks that the question he has now put deserves a considered answer, I hope he will put it on the Order Paper.

South African Shareholders' Tax

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to resume negotiations with the Union of South Africa for the abolition of the nonresident shareholders' tax, which presses heavily on British persons resident in the United Kingdom who have contributed a large portion of the capital required for

the development of the South African goldmining industry.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot yet give a date, but we are keeping the point in mind.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister take full steps to protect British interests?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, of course.

Film Transactions (Dollars)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the method by which payment was made for the Odeon group of cinema theatres in Canada, for which it is understood 4,000,000 dollars was paid;
(2) what is the figure for the dollars earned and brought back to this country by the Rank Film Organisation from the U.S.A. since its attempt to enter the U.S. market, up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is contrary both to precedent and to the public interest to disclose the details asked for by my hon Friend.

Savings (Income Tax)

Sir W. Darling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of making savings up to £5,000 in Government stocks for each British citizen, free of Income Tax; and if he will consider this proposal in the interests of the National Savings Movement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No such estimate is possible, but in any case I cannot entertain this proposal.

Sir W. Darling: Are we to understand from that reply, especially the latter part of it, that the Minister has not under consideration any new methods of encouraging the National Savings Movement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider new methods, and if the hon. Member has any to suggest I hope he will put them forward.

Sir W. Darling: This, I venture to say, is one.

Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation

Mr. Assheton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what powers he is


able to control the activities of the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation; and whether these powers extend to an alteration of its memorandum and articles of association.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend has not claimed control. No alteration of its memorandum and articles of association comes into question.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 1st April, that even if it were so he reserved the right to change any arrangements that may have been made; and does the Financial Secretary find it possible to reconcile that with the answer he has just given, or is it perhaps that since that answer was given by the Chancellor on 1st April the position has changed?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think there is a difference between the right to change any arrangement and that to take control.

Mr. Assheton: I wonder if the Financial Secretary could explain that difference, and whether he could answer my question, which is whether the Chancellor's power extends to an alteration of the memorandum and articles of association?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have said that my right hon. Friend did not claim that he could take control, or had control.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Financial Secretary say whether the Treasury do or do not consider they are bound by the statement of the last Chancellor, that it is not intended that this Corporation shall compete with ordinary market facilities?

Tobacco Duty

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of an increase of 2s. per week to male old-age pensioners; and whether he will consider such an increase to enable them to meet the new tobacco tax.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The cost would be £8½ million a year. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend cannot at present add to the statement which he made in the Debate on 22nd April.

Mrs. Castle: When the Chancellor is considering this matter, will he bear in

mind that any such concession which ex eluded women old age pensioners would be strongly resented, both in this House and in the country?

Mr. Lipson: In view of the great interest that is felt everywhere in this matter, cat my right hon. Friend say now whether an) progress is being made by the Chancellor in finding some means by which old age pensioners can be relieved of this tax?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: All I can say is that my right hon. Friend is considering this and he will be making an announcement in due course, when his consideration have reached a further stage.

62. Mr. David Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider extending the privilege of duty-free tobacco now given to deep-sea fishermen, to home water fishermen whose duties take them to sea for 15 days at a time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great dissatisfaction is caused by the fact that while deep sea fishermen who are away for 21 days are able to obtain this concession, home water fishermen who are away for 15 days cannot obtain it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We make this concession to fishermen going some distance from the shore and not to those who fish in waters adjacent to the coast for the simple reason that it would be very easy for the latter to obtain this duty-free tobacco and then to get in touch with people ashore who would use it for their own purposes.

Mr. Beechman: Is the Minister aware that these fishermen, who go to sea in quite small craft, are often 80 miles or more from our shores and necessarily endure great discomfort?

Soane Museum

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Soane Museum is inaccessible to the public owing to the inadequacy of the original endowment; and whether he will make a grant to the trustees in order that the public may be able to study and enjoy the works of art contained in it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. It is proposed to present a Supplementary Estimate inviting the House to vote a grant in aid of £2,250 towards the expenses of the museum, in order to enable the museum to be opened to the public on 240 days in the year.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and the country at large will be very gratified to hear this; nevertheless, would he consider making some representations to the trustees that, in view of the number of excellent Hogarths in this collection, they should in future be hung in such a way that they can be seen properly?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The Rake's Progress.

Farm Tractors (Oil Tax)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of tax per gallon is now payable for diesel oil for agricultural tractors; and what rate per gallon is payable for vaporising oil for agricultural tractors.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Nothing in the first case, and a penny in the second, provided the tractors satisfy the conditions of Subsection (7) (d) of Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1935, as amended.

High Court Judges' Salaries

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation to effect an increase in the salaries of His Majesty's High Court Judges, or afford them tax relief, in view of the fact that the salaries now being paid were fixed in relation to the cost of living in 1832.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any other instances in which salaries fixed in relation to the cost of living in 1832 have not been increased?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these salaries are much less than those paid to high business executives and are disproportionate in view of the great service rendered by His Majesty's judges?

Entertainments Duty

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion, respec-

tively, of the £53,392,000 provisional receipts and £52,000,000 estimated receipts. for 1947–48 mentioned in the Financial Statement, 1947–48, in respect of Entertainments Duty, is attributable to Duty on living entertainment, exclusive of sports.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: About 10 per cent. in each case.

Tobacco Exports (Dollar Content)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the dollar cost of the tobacco utilised in the manufacture of cigarettes exported from the United Kingdom during 1946 and the first quarter of 1947, respectively, and the amounts exported to soft- and hard-currency areas. respectively.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The dollar content of commercial tobacco exports was 15 million dollars in 1946 and 4¼million in the first quarter of 1947. In the two periods, 70 per cent, and 85 per cent., respectively, went to British Empire markets.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does my right hon. Friend feel that we are justified in spending the dollars, which we are so hard put to obtain, in exporting tobacco to soft currency countries?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Most of these reexports go to the Colonies, and for every dollar we spend on imports of tobacco we obtain 2.4 dollars in return, which from our point of view is good business.

Mr. Erroll: In view of that, has the Minister taken steps to prohibit the direct importation of dollar cigarettes into the Commonwealth?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That, of course, is a matter for the Colonies, but if we did not export them to the Colonies obviously the Colonies would go direct to a dollar country.

Mr. Harrison: Does not the Minister think that he has done quite enough harm to cigarette and tobacco smokers without doing anything further?

Currency Manipulations

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the illicit trading and currency dealings by British Forces, written off in the Army Appropriation Account, amounting to £58,000,000 for 1945 and 1946, and the


currency manipulation as recently disclosed in the courts, involve this country in making exports to redeem this loss of money without receiving in exchange any tangible imports of advantage to this country.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The recent currency manipulations by placing sterling at the disposal of non-residents certainly had this effect. As to the £58 million, perhaps my hon. Friend will await the findings of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Cooper: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to give the utmost publicity to the fact that these irregular transactions have to be redeemed by the sweat and toil of the workers of this country, so as to discourage any similar transactions in future?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. I think the more the fact is known the better it will be.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to prepare and submit counterclaims to countries holding sterling balances.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have nothing to add to the answer of my right hon. Friend on 11th March.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Financial Secretary say when the Government will make up their minds on this important matter? Is he aware that all negotiations so far show that other countries have declined to consider counterclaims whilst His Majesty's Government, accepting the right to make them, have done nothing to present or press them? Can the Financial Secretary say when we can expect a statement of policy?

U.N.R.R.A. (U.K. Contributions)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that British contributions to U.N.R.R.A. have and are being spent correctly, in accordance with the accepted objects of U.N.R.R.A.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This has been the duty of the representative of His Majesty's Government on the various U.N.R.R.A. committees.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Financial Secretary satisfied with that arrangement in view of the fact that many of the goods supplied through U.N.R.R.A. are sold by the countries which receive them to other countries at a profit, and that in the case of Italy, certainly, the U.N.R.R.A. organisation has been used to promote illegal Jewish emigration?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We do what we can to see that this money is properly used. The machinery is fairly full, but it is obvious that where you have sums of this sort covering such an enormous area occasionally things go wrong. As a general rule, however, I think this money does reach its right destination.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Financial Secretary aware that a very serious allegation has been made about the way the British taxpayers' money has been wasted through U.N.R.R.A., has he had the opportunity of seeing the evidence I sent to the Treasury that, as my hon. Friend has said, much of the money reaches illegal quarters, and will he have an inquiry made as to where the British taxpayers' money goes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: All these things can and will be debated at the appropriate time.

Information Services

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what sums of money per head of the population of the United Kingdom between the ages of 20 and 6o years were expended on information divisions of Government departments in this country, including the Central Office of Information, in 1946; and how this sum compares with expenditure per head of the population between the ages of 20 and 60 years on similar Government publicity in 1938.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The information is not immediately available. I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Civil Service Claim

Mr. Janner: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a salary claim on behalf of office keepers and deputy office keepers was lodged by the Civil Service Union with the Treasury on 16th May, 1946; and when negotiations on the claim can be expected to commence.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir, and I understand that a letter will be sent to the union shortly. Consideration of the claim was deferred, with the acquiescence of the union, until the pay of the messengers, who are controlled by the office keepers, was settled in December, 1946. Since then certain proposals for reorganisation of duties have held up the claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETIES' INTEREST

63. Mr. Mellish: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take powers to compel building societies to reduce their interest charges on enemy-destroyed houses to 2½ per cent.; and if he is aware that the Halifax Building Society and Cooperative Building Society have already reduced their charges to 2½ per cent.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: An excellent lead has been given by these two societies in meeting the problem of the enemy destroyed houses. My right hon. Friend is in touch with the Building Societies' Association on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Teapots

71. Mr. John Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of ordinary teapots; and what steps he is taking to remedy it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) on 24th April.

Mr. Walkden: Is the Minister aware that I myself went to 11 shops locally to try to buy a teapot, that I could not find one anywhere, and that, although I have made inquiries in my division, I cannot find a shop that has one; can he advise me where an ordinary housewife or husband can buy a teapot? I demand an answer.

Mr. Belcher: That is not one of the services for which I can make myself responsible, but if my hon. Friend will study the answer to which I have referred he will find that we are aware of the reasons for this shortage and are taking all the steps we can to overcome it.

Mr. Walkden: I have read it, but I cannot find a teapot.

Mr. J. Morrison: May I corroborate the statement of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who cannot find a teapot anywhere?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is the Minister's idea to keep teapots short because of the shortage of tea?

Paper (Weekly Newspapers)

72. Mr. Champion: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will permit weekly newspapers to issue and maintain their papers at the pre-February size by using the stocks they now have in their possession and without drawing additional supplies from the common pool.

Mr. Belcher: No, Sir. In present conditions, I do not think that any further drawing down of stocks would be desirable.

Mr. Champion: Is the Minister aware that the stocks to which I referred are those actually in the possession of newspaper proprietors for this purpose?

Mr. Belcher: I am aware of that fact, but I think it would be unwise to go too fast now and then be faced with a further crisis in two or three months' time.

Women's Clothes

73. Mr. Shurmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are large stocks of women's coats, dresses and skirts held in wholesalers warehouses and shops; and if he will consider downpointing coupon values of these articles.

Mr. Belcher: I am aware that the trade generally holds fair stocks of women's coats, dresses and skirts, but the output of cloth of all types has been severely affected by the fuel shortage. I do not, therefore, contemplate that there will be any reduction in the coupon value of these garments which would be equivalent to an increase in the size of the clothing ration.

Tobacco Exports

75. Mr. Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he intends to restrict the re-export of tobacco and cigarettes made in this country from


imported U.S. leaf; and what proportion of these exports will be going to soft- and hard-currency countries.

Mr. Belcher: It is not intended to restrict exports of tobacco and cigarettes manufactured in this country, since this would merely force sterling area countries, to which the bulk of our exports go, to buy instead from the U.S.A. with dollars supplied in the main by the United Kingdom. Moreover, they would presumably have to buy manufactured tobacco and cigarettes, costing 2½ times as many dollars as an equal quantity of tobacco and cigarettes made in the United Kingdom from imported American leaf. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies).

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister say whether the sterling area countries to which we are exporting cigarettes are taking steps to restrict consumption in the same way as we are?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large proportion of these cigarettes exported to British Empire countries such as Gibraltar and Malta find their way into the black markets of neighbouring countries such as Spain and Italy?

Mr. Belcher: I am certainly not aware of that, but it is a matter which lies outside my control.

Mr. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend realise that the tobacco traders of this country will be very pleased with the reply he has given?

Import of Books

Sir J. Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) under what authority restrictions have been imposed on the import of Australian books into the United Kingdom;
(2) whether he will adjust existing restrictions upon the import of literature into the United Kingdom so as to differentiate in favour of imports from the sterling area.

Mr. Belcher: I regret that I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, for reasons which are given fully in the statement circulated in the OFFICIAL

REPORT for 17th April in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge). As explained in that statement, the present arrangements for the import of books have been devised so as to take account, as far as is consistent with our obligation not to discriminate against imports from the U.S.A., of the growth of the publishing industry in Australia and other Commonwealth countries since 1939.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman say why imports from the sterling area should be restricted by reference to the quantity of literature we can afford to buy from the United States?

Mr. Belcher: I think the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that the loan agreement does tie us to some extent not to discriminate against imports from the United States of America in favour of other countries.

Mr. Cooper: Will the Minister go into the whole question of seeing that the allocation of paper is diverted to the channels which are most important instead of being wasted on hoardings and similar ugly devices, since we want all the paper we can have for books?

Mr. Belcher: I am afraid that if I started an inquiry into the most effective and useful distribution of paper I should be bombarded by inquiries and representations from various quarters of the House in favour of very many different uses.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON DOCK STRIKE

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the present stoppage of work at the London Docks; and whether he can assure the House that the Government will take any necessary steps to ensure the maintenance of food supplies to the civil population.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I would crave the indulgence of the House to enable me to state the position fully, as it is important that the facts should be known as widely as possible. At a special meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, held on 26th June last year, the Council agreed to appoint national representatives to form a Committee, with representatives of the National Dock Labour Corporation and


the Ministry of Transport, to visit the principal port areas, to consider, with the local committees, the appropriate labour force in each case, and the action necessary to adjust numbers. This fact-finding Committee reported on 6th August last, and reductions have been made on the basis of its recommendations. In the case of Glasgow, however, although the Committee found a redundancy of 819 men, the existence of redundancy was challenged by the Scottish Transport and General Workers' Union. No progress could be made in joint discussions between the Regional Port Director and the Union. Finally, on i6th March, the Regional Port Director announced his decision to proceed with the discharge of 500 men. The dockers in Glasgow stopped work on 24th March; the notices were issued on 26th March and expired on 9th April.
Following a meeting of the trade union side of the National Joint Council on 16th April, it was made clear on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, that if the men returned to work, any discharged men who were prewar dockers, estimated to number 204 out of the 500, could be reinstated. The remaining 296 could be given work without guarantee, pending inquiry by the National Joint Council into the present labour position at the port. Unfortunately, the stoppage still persists. It is against this background that the men belonging to the stevedores' and lighter-men's unions stopped work in London yesterday morning. The total numbers affected are 9,400; 12,222 men are still at work, and 1,553 have proved attendance —that is, they turned up for work.
I understand that the trade union side of the National Joint Council, but not including the Scottish Transport and General Workers' Union, met in London this morning to consider the position, when it was decided that all the unions should declare whether they abide by the policy of the National Joint Council and accept its constitution. It will be realised, therefore, that the present stoppage has brought into question the constitution of the joint machinery of the industry. The effect of the stoppage on the work of the port of London is serious. Some 17 ships containing food supplies are idle. This not only prevents the punctual discharge of cargo, but interrupts the regular flow of essential food supplies. Coal supplies

required for vital services are also being held up. A further difficulty arises from the fact that the normal arrangements for handling London's refuse have been dislocated.
Whatever the facts of the Glasgow dispute, there can be no justification for the stoppage of work in London. It is a violation of the constitutional machinery of the industry, and it shows a complete disregard for its effect on the national well-being. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Government will take any necessary steps to safeguard food supplies. The only effect of a continuation of the present stoppage can be the loss and hardship which it occasions to the community. I sincerely hope, however, that wiser counsels will prevail, and that the men everywhere will resume work without delay.

Mr. Eden: May I ask two questions arising out of the statement? First, is it a fact that the food cargoes "frozen" by the loading and unloading hold-up, now total 135,000 tons; and, secondly, is the Minister satisfied that there is no risk of deterioration in respect of any part of these cargoes, and, if there is a risk, what do the Government propose to do about it?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the exact figure as to tonnage. The tonnage is pretty considerable because there are 17 ships, but the refrigeration on the ships is kept going, and there is not much risk, at any rate for some days ahead, of deterioration. Meanwhile, the Government are taking every step open to see that the food supplies are not delayed. May I add one further thing, which came to my notice just before I rose to make the statement? We have received an intimation from the Scottish Union, who have telegraphed to town today for a copy of the statement I made last night. It is a pity that it was not put over in full detail on the B.B.C. last night. They are no* considering it, and I publicly say to the Scottish dockers that if they accept that statement, which is very fair and honourable to them, and return to work, the inquiry as to the extent of redundancy will be put in hand immediately, and there will be no prejudice to them as a consequence.

Mr. Eden: May I ask one further question on the subject of redundancy? In


view of the many conflicting statements may we be told whether there is any other evidence of redundancy in Glasgow, apart from this Committee's report?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, there is very strong financial evidence, apart from this Committee's report. The charge of maintaining the guarantee to dock workers who are unable to obtain work, spread over the whole of the ports of the country, averages 15 per cent. of the wages bill. Although other ports have met their obligations within that 15 per cent., and some have a surplus, the Glasgow docks have a deficit of over £300,000. That a clear indication, on top of the Commission's inquiry, that there are more men than the docks can support.

Mr. Maclay: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear also that this whole question of redundancy arises largely out of the very great attempt which has been made to overcome the problem of casual labour in the docks, and is all part of the decasualisation scheme?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, that has been made clear. The decasualisation scheme requires that every person on the books on 30th June should automatically become a registered dock employee on 1st July. We have to see, therefore, that we do not carry over at least 500 more than are necessary.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it is a great mistake to aggravate the situation by further questions when a settlement appears to be possible.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask a question which, I hope, will do no harm? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the decasualisation scheme was not intended to produce the permanent unemployment of any men at the docks; and can he say what attention has been paid to providing regular employment for any dockers who may be declared redundant?

Mr. Isaacs: That question covers a far larger field. As far as the Scottish position is concerned, the Minister of Transport was able to offer permanent employment to a great number of dockers who would have been declared redundant under this scheme.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that Scottish dockers complain that the alleged

redundancy is due to the fact that the Scottish ports have not been getting their fair share of ships?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think there is any justification for that, and I have not heard of it in any investigations I have made. I am not the employer negotiating the settlement, but merely the intermediary bringing both sides together. In the investigations I have made, there was real evidence of a large number of men doing only half a day's work a week, while others were doing six and a half days' work a week. There is a great deal to be done among the men themselves in sharing the work out in Glasgow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: In asking about the Business for today, may I, first of all, say how glad we all are to see the Lord President of the Council back among us, and congratulate him warmly on his most evident return to health?
While we are gratified at the slight extension of time with which the acting Leader of the House has honoured us for today's Business, may I ask him to observe that we have not yet reached the Report stage of the Transport Bill, and to bear in mind that in the circumstances it might be more convenient for everybody if he gave the House a third day for a real Report stage? Otherwise, the Report stage will have to be condensed into two, days. May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that what I said yesterday about undiscussed Clauses and Schedules is as true now as it was then?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I was well aware at midnight last night that we had made small progress with the Bill, but it will be within the recollection of the House that when I offered, some weeks ago, a fourth day for the Report stage that offer was violently repudiated and was, of course, withdrawn. I must repeat what I said yesterday, that the Report stage of this Bill must conclude by 9.30 p.m. tomorrow. I thought that I had met the House in a reasonable way by adding four hours to today's working; if it be the case that some of the Clauses are not properly discussed, then the responsibility must largely lie with Members opposite

Mr. Eden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember, in connection with his offer of four days, that what he asked us to do was to agree to a programme by which we should consent to be guillotined? Nobody in any century has ever wanted to do that; nobody likes being guillotined. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the work which the House did yesterday was of a constructive nature, following on Amendments that were discussed in Committee. Since this is a major Bill, surely it is reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should give us a reasonable opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Greenwood: I fall back on the statement I made yesterday, that by the will of the House, the Guillotine was imposed on this Measure. That decision still stands. Obviously, at this late hour, it cannot be altered. A considerable amount of time was wasted by Members opposite yesterday in driving us into the Division Lobbies, when that time might have been far better spent on constructive argument.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Who suffers most if a Bill of major importance is not adequately discussed? Is it not the people of the country? Do not the Government recognise that they are in the position of being trustees for the people?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Transport Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for Four hours after Ten o 'clock.[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (RECOMMITTED) BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28th April].

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right to acquire acquisition by Commission of canal carrier undertakings.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

3.46 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I started last night to explain that this Clause arises from a discussion we had on the Committee stage, when I was urged to provide some rights to canal carriers who may be injured by a determination of the Commission. This Clause provides that where a canal carrier is dissatisfied, by a determination of the licensing authority, which is the British Transport Commission, with regard to the carrying on of his undertaking, he can invoke the right for the Commission to take over his undertaking. By a previous Amendment the licensing period of five years was extended to seven years, and it will follow that if the canal carrier is dissatisfied with the licensing decision he will appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. If the Tribunal upholds the appeal the canal carrier will continue as before, but if the Tribunal supports the decision of the Commission, then the canal carrier can exercise his right to require the Commission to take over his business under the compensation plan that applies to the road haulage undertaker. At that stage, six months will elapse for the purpose of enabling the Commission and the canal carrier to come to terms, if they so desire. In matters of this description, I believe that it will be to the general advantage if agreement is reached where possible, but if no agreement is reached then the matter can go


to the Arbitration Tribunal for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. I think this new Clause adequately meets the case which was put in Standing Committee, by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite)

Mr. Maclay: I rise with some hesitation to speak on this Motion, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.Commander Braithwaite) is not here. He would, however, I am sure, wish to thank the Minister for meeting us in this way, and I feel certain that between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, the Minister will be prepared to look into any further points of detail which may require consideration.

Mr. Digby: I thank the Minister for having brought forward this Clause which meets some of the objections raised in Committee, but there is one point in Subsection (3) which requires clarification. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said that compensation was to be based on the same principle as that for road hauliers. He must be aware that the life of these craft is very much longer— perhaps five times longer—than the life of road haulage vehicles. I should like to have his assurance that that and other differences between road haulage vehicles and these craft, and the difference of circumstances between this industry and the road haulage industry, will be properly taken into account, when it comes to determining compensation.

Mr. Barnes: I would inform the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) that this has been discussed with those concerned, and if any other point should arise between now and the Bill's consideration in another place, I will look into the matter. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Digby) that the life of a barge is generally recognised to be longer than the life of a lorry, I accept that statement, and it will be taken into consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right to acquire acquisi-
tion of undertakings providing
port facilities.)

(1) Where—

(a) a person who, on the twenty-eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and

forty-six was carrying on an undertaking the activities of which consisted wholly or partly of the provision of port facilities in the harbour (hereinafter in this Section referred to as "the appellant") appeals to the Transport Tribunal under subsection (4) of Section sixty-five of this Act from a determination of the licensing authority in relation to the provision of port facilities in the harbour; and
(b) the tribunal refuse, either in whole or in part, to do by their order what is asked for by the appellant on that appeal; and
(c) the tribunal are satisfied that their refusal will involve a substantial interference with the carrying on by the appellant of some activity which he was carrying on before the said twenty-eighth day of November and which he has, up to the time of the determination which was the subject of the appeal, continued to carry on with only such intermissions, if any, as are incidental to the nature of the activity.

the tribunal may, on the -application of the appellant, declare that the undertaking of the appellant, or some part thereof specified in the declaration, is to be transferred to such body, being either the licensing authority or some other body administering or taking part in administering the scheme relating to the harbour or providing port facilities thereunder, as may be specified in the declaration
(2) Where a declaration is made under the last preceding subsection, and at the expiration of six months from the making thereof no agreement has been entered into between the appellant and the body specified in the declaration for the acquisition by that body by agreement of the undertaking or of the part of the undertaking specified in the declaration the appellant may apply to the Minister for an order giving effect to the transfer required by the declaration and the Minister shall make an order accordingly:
Provided that the Minister may permit such an application to be made before the expiration of the said six months if he is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the transfer being effected by agreement.
(3) Any such order shall apply to the transfer, with such exceptions and subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, the provisions of this Act relating to transfers of undertakings or parts of undertakings under Part III of this Act, including provisions as to compensation:
Provided that before making the order the Minister shall give the body specified in the declaration and the appellant an opportunity of being heard before a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose, and shall consider the report of the person so appointed
(4) If the body specified in the declaration and the appellant so agree, the order may effect the transfer of a part only of the undertaking notwithstanding that the declaration related to the whole of the undertaking, or of the whole of the undertaking notwithstanding that the declaration related to part only thereof, or of a part of the undertaking not identical with the part of the undertaking specified in the declaration."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members will find that this Clause which applies to undertakings providing port facilities follows, in almost identical terms, the previous Clause with regard to canal carrier undertakings. This arises, as the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) will appreciate, from the many discussions initiated on this matter during the Committee stage. I hope that by this Clause I shall be able to settle the hon. Member's troubles, and that I shall not be unduly inconvenienced from now onwards. I have agreed in this Clause that the Commission shall not have a monopoly of these port facilities, and it any person licensed to carry on such facilities considers that he is injured by any decision of the licensing authority, the same procedure as that which applies to canal undertakers will operate, and the necessary safeguards will be carried through

Mr. Maclay: I am slightly more at home on this question than on that of canal carriers. I again thank the Minister for meeting the requests made in Committee. The real trouble is that there has not been time to consider the implications of this Clause for the large variety of undertakings which may be affected by it. There are warehouse keepers, lighter owners, barge owners, stevedores, tug owners and others who may be affected by the terms of the Clause, and, therefore, it will be recognised that it is essential that there should be time for consultation with those industries to see whether the Clause achieves what I know the Minister intends. There are some obvious points which require consideration
The Minister mentioned, in moving the earlier Clause dealing with canal undertakings, that there have been certain changes and concessions in connection with the period of duration of licences. I do not think that question has so far been discussed in connection with ancillary port facilities, but this may be a matter which should be looked at very carefully, and also the terms of the licences. Again it is doubtful whether the compensation terms under Part III of the Bill can apply to all the varieties of equipment used by the various types of under taking which I have mentioned. The point has been made that a lighter or barge has a very much longer life than

that of a motor vehicle. It is possible for a barge to be successfully operating after 70 years if it has been well built, and that presents a problem when it comes to a question of compensation.
Generally speaking, one must thank the Minister for doing what he promised on the Committee stage, but in doing so one does not wish to imply that there is any likelihood of this Clause having to be used. If a new authority set up under a scheme in accordance with the Bill works under an identical licence, there is no reason to believe that licences to private undertakings would work in such a way that any undertaking would be damaged. I hope that it is in the Minister's mind that that kind of thing will never happen, but I would rather have some other provision in the Bill to protect a private enterprise firm which continue under licence from the risk of damage from an arbitrary or wrong type of licensing.
Another point which may arise, and which requires careful consideration, is that it may be wise to have a provision to make certain that it is not possible for an undertaking carried on by an authority set up under a scheme to operate in such an unfair way that it is impossible for private enterprise competitors to go on working. That is still a possibility under the Bill. It is conceivable that a new authority operating a port may run tugs, and charge such low sums for their use that other competitors cannot exist. As I understand the Bill, that would be possible, and any loss on the operation of the tugs by the authority operating under the scheme could disappear in the general receipts of the undertaking. It is that kind of thing for which we want protection, and it may be preferable to devise a Clause for that purpose. I do not think that the Minister wants to introduce unfair competition, but it is possible under the Bill. If we could get an effective Clause of that kind, it may be that this particular Clause will not be necessary. As one has to prepare for all eventualities, one must thank the Minister for putting the Clause in its present form, and I hope that if representations are made to him between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place he will listen to them sympathetically.

Mr. Charles Williams: The Minister made a rather pathetic appeal just now that he should not be unduly


inconvenienced. I would like to join with the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) in thanking him for producing a Clause which is, I believe, on the right lines, but I accept it with the reservation that the Minister should between now and another place go into these matters of licensing on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. There may be other forms of licences in connection with certain harbours. If I understand the matter aright certain harbours will not be covered under this Clause. What is to be the position in regard to fishing boats and pleasure boats in certain harbours. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to drive this form of enterprise out of existence. If he will give me an assurance on that matter I feel we can get along with this Clause. I have used a very obvious illustration of the type of thing which I think the Minister is trying to guard against, namely, unfair operations under this Bill. I am not sure, looking at it widely, whether this Clause will do it or whether it might not be possible to add words in another place in the sense recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs. I should like an assurance that it is not intended that this sort of thing should come under a nationalisation Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: In reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) the boats which he mentioned are not included. This Clause only covers a particular kind of harbour. I think the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) largely answered his own fears when he referred to the fact that this Clause will not come into operation until a scheme is initiated by the Commission. I would remind him that part of the procedure under these schemes ensures the fullest possible discussion with the port or harbour authorities concerned. They will have the fullest opportunity of discussing practical and technical points. The Minister must satisfy himself that objections are being withdrawn before he issues any orders, and if objections are not withdrawn, these schemes are subject to special Parliamentary procedure. I think that fully covers those difficulties. After all, we are merely settling the procedure. I quite recognise that a wide range of activities, properties and undertakings will be acquired which we

could not possibly foresee in detail, and they will be effected by any schemes. Therefore, we propose this procedure which gives the fullest opportunity for those matters to be considered adequately. If a dispute arises with the Commission or the body which the Commission establishes for the purpose of carrying out the port and harbour scheme, the procedure provides in the first place for an appeal to the Transport Tribunal and the Tribunal has to make a determination. Subsequently compensation is settled by the Arbitration Tribunal. If on further examination we can discover any possibility of improvement we will see what can be done. This new Clause will not prevent us looking into it again.

Mr. Maclay: While thanking the Minister for promising to look into further details which may arise, there is one point to which I should like to refer and that is the subject of Parliamentary procedure. I sincerely hope that the Minister will use his influence on the Leader of the House to induce him to give us sufficient time to discuss some very interesting Amendments on the Eighth Schedule which deal with this special Parliamentary procedure. We believe that they afford additional protection which the Minister himself wants.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the matter of pleasure boats. That, of course, covers the ordinary pleasure boats, but there is another case about which I am thinking. That is the case of a harbour where licence is given to a boat to run round trips for profit to another harbour along the coast. Under the Bill a licence can be refused, which would drive the whole of this business away and allow the authorities to take it over. If the Minister will agree that that is not the intention under the new Clause I should be glad of his assurance. I hope he will look into it carefully and take what steps are necessary to strengthen the Clause in this respect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Additional compensa- sation to local authorities.)

(1) Where, under Part II of this Act or under any scheme made under Part IV of this Act, any undertaking to which this section applies


is transferred from a local authority to the Commission or to a body constituted or specified under such a scheme, the Commission or that body, as the Case may be, shall pay to the authority whose undertaking is transferred the appropriate sum as compensation under this Section.
(2) The undertakings to which this Section applies are—

(a) any undertaking of a local authority which falls to be transferred under Part II of this Act;
(b) any undertaking which, at the passing of this Act, is being carried on by a local authority, being an undertaking which could be transferred to the Commission or to some other body as aforesaid under a scheme under Part IV of this Act;

and the expression "the appropriate sum" means, in relation to any undertaking to which this Section applies, such sum as may be specified in relation to that undertaking by regulations made by the Minister, so, however, that the total of all the appropriate sums for undertakings the activities whereof consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services does not exceed two and a half million pounds and the total of all the appropriate sums for other undertakings does not exceed two hundred thousand pounds.
(3) This Section shall apply in relation to a transfer of a part of an undertaking to which this Section applies as it applies in relation to the whole of that undertaking except that the sum payable by way of compensation under this Section shall be such part of the appropriate sum as may be determined by the Minister; and the total of the sums so determined by the Minister in relation to parts of an undertaking shall not exceed the appropriate sum for the whole of that undertaking.
(4) The compensation payable under this Section shall be payable in cash and shall be in addition to any compensation payable under any provision of this Act, or under any other provision of this Act as applied by a scheme; and the references in Part IV of this Act to provisions of this Act relating to compensation shall be deemed not to include references to this Section.
(5) In this Section, the expression "local authority" includes the council of a county district.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When I moved an Amendment to Clause 25 yesterday I explained the purpose of this new Clause. As a result of representations made by local authorities both with regard to the Electricity Bill and the Transport Bill, the Government had come to a decision to set aside sums under both Measures for the purpose of meeting any loss which local authorities might incur as a result of the severance of these trading undertakings from their general local authority expenses and over-

heads. The figure that has been settled as a result of the discussion between my Department and the representatives of the local authorities amounts in this case to a sum of £2,500,000. As I indicated before, it is anticipated that a sum of approximately £200,000 will cover any similar liabilities that might arise under the port scheme.
I always like to be accurate in the information which I give to the Committee, and when I was moving that Amendment I said this had been negotiated. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who pressed me on that point. I do not know whether there is any difference, but I should like to make it clear at this stage that expert representatives of the local authorities discussed this with the officers of my Department, and it is anticipated that this sum will, roughly, cover the liability which we intend to meet. But there has not been time to have it fully considered by the local authorities as such. Those in discussion with my Department, however, agree that this sum would probably do what was my intention in this case. I have also discovered that the Scottish authorities have not been included in these consultations. Nevertheless I have no reason to believe that this sum will not be adequate for this purpose. I commend it to the Committee with that slight correction of the statement which I made, when I moved the previous Amendment.

Mr. Assheton: I am obliged to the Minister for what he has told us. I hope he will forgive me for having pressed him, perhaps he thought rather mercilessly, on this matter last night. I think the answer which he has given this afternoon to some extent justifies me in the action which I took. I certainly did not intend to suggest that the Minister was misrepresenting. I never thought of that for one moment. I wanted the Committee to know whether or not the local authorities were satisfied. We are often told about consultations and negotiations, and so on. One rather wants to know whether as a result of these consultations and negotiations, an arrangement has been arrived at which is satisfactory to both parties or whether it is merely a case of the local authorities having had to listen to the Minister's decision and accept it with the best grace which they


could muster. As far as I can gather, in the first place, the Minister only proposed to go a part of the way. What he is trying to negotiate with the local authorities is whether or not the sum of £2,500,000 meets that part of the way which he intends to go. I notice in HANSARD that what the Minister said in opening this matter yesterday was:
For the time being, it is proposed that should set aside a sum of £2,500,000."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1635.]
I am not quite certain what is implied by the words "for the time being."

Mr. Barnes: Until the area schemes are ready.

Mr. Assheton: In that case, it appears that £2,500,000 is the sum fixed by the Government for this purpose, and that it is not open to discussion. Now, it remains for the Minister and his officials to negotiate with the local authorities and to try to persuade them to fit their schemes into the £2,500,000 which is available. Of course, I cannot prophesy how that will work out. I have seen something of these global sums in the past. It does not always work out that everybody gets what he thinks is a fair deal. We are grateful to the Minister for having made a move in the right direction, although I do not for one moment suggest that it will satisfy the local authorities. We do not intend to oppose this new Clause.

Mr. Hoy: I wish to put a question to the Minister arising from what he said yesterday about having had negotiations with the proper accredited representatives of the local authorities. Since then I have had an opinion from Scotland which verifies the statement that Scottish local authorities were not consulted. We expect that the sum will be such as will cover the needs of - the Scottish local authorities concerned, whether or not the Minister has to go back to the Treasury, in order to increase the global sum. I suggest that when the regulations are made, the Minister should consult with the Scottish local authorities, and I should like a specific assurance upon that point.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilkins: The Minister has said that he realised that local authorities had not had a lot of time in which to consider the new Clause. Unfortunately, I have not had much time in

which to contact my local authority and get their reactions. The Minister may remember that on Second Reading I was rather interested to know how the Bill would affect municipal docks. This is not a case which is quite comparable with or analogous to those of gas or electricity. As I tried to make plain on Second Reading, a rate-in-aid may have had to be given to a dock undertaking over a long number of years. It is the opinion of the Port of Bristol Authority that the sum which the Minister has provided—£200,000 from the global sum—is totally inadequate and certainly will not satisfy these demands. We think that it is not sufficient to meet even the commitments of the Minister in regard to our undertaking under his proposal.
Under Section 21 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945, local authorities are allowed to aggregate all their interest payments and other annual charges, and to treat them as payable out of taxed receipts in so far as the profits of their trading undertakings will allow. The amount available to the city of Bristol under this provision, expressed in terms of tax, have averaged £173,507 over the past nine years. This is equal to a rate of 1s. 0½d. in the£ on the rateable value of the city. From the point of view of the ratepayers it is a serious matter. Should the Bristol docks be brought under the control of the Commission, then this relief would disappear automatically, with a consequent adverse effect upon the ratepayers of the city. The Port of Bristol Authority consider that it is of prime importance that this benefit to the city should be preserved in the financial arrangements which are to be included in this Bill. At present, there is no Clause which would allow compensation to be paid in respect of Income Tax losses arising if nationalisation is extended, as we believe it will be extended, to the Bristol dock undertaking.
The Minister mentioned the effect of severance. If severance takes place, we presume that the city would continue to manage the stocks relating to capital of the dock undertaking and would be entitled to some reimbursement in connection with the administrative expenses in which they would be involved. The dock share in this connection is, approximately, £3,000 per annum, but we think that this would be increased by reason of the Budget provision which provides for the doubling of Stamp Duties on transfers


and so on. Therefore, we think that it is proper that the city would continue to incur overhead charges relating to these stocks for perhaps another 50 years after severance. Consequently, the major part of the £200,000 would be required by Bristol alone under this one heading relating to stock management expenses. There are other continuing overheads with which I will not trouble the Committee. We ask the Minister, if it is not too late, to reconsider the provision which he is making in this Clause. We suggest that £200,000 dispersed among all the municipal dock undertakings will be totally inadequate to meet the claims which these various authorities would have a right to submit to the Minister.

Mr. W. J. Brown: If I had been present yesterday, I should have desired to attack the compensation provisions of this Bill as a whole. All that I can do today is to attack the compensation provisions in this new Clause put forward by the Government for the category of undertaking to which reference is made. That is defined in the Clause as "an appropriate sum." The Clause says:
The expression 'the appropriate sum' means, in relation to any undertaking to which this Section applies, such sum as may be specified in relation to that undertaking by Regulations made by the Minister.
Later on, there is an overall restriction as to the total sum which may be paid out in compensation to all the undertakings taken together. That is a brief summary of the contents of this Clause. I wish to attack that Clause, and I wish to attack it because it corresponds with no principle whatever that any reputable Government in the past would have applied in dealing with a matter of this kind.
I have served in the public service for a very long period of time, and in my day in the public service there were three principles which governed this kind of thing. The first principle—it is staggering to relate it now—was that there should be a principle; that is to say, that decisions should not be taken arbitrarily on each case as it arose, but that every decision, although the amounts would differ, must be related to a firm principle which applied throughout the whole area with which the State was concerned. Principle No. 2 was that whenever the State took over, whether from a municipal

authority or a private citizen, property by requisition or nationalisation or any other legal means, the obligation laid upon the State was to pay a fair price for that property. The validity of that principle does not require much argument. All sorts of people put their money into different concerns, and it would be a monstrous injustice to a category of people who happened to have put their money into one type of concern if that concern were treated differently from any other. That would be an injustice as between one type of citizen and another. Therefore, the principle was laid down, for universal application—a fair price for what was taken over. Principle No. 3 was that in the event of a dispute arising between the citizen or the municipal authority on the one side, and the State on the other, as to what constituted a fair price, neither the citizen nor the State should be judge and jury in its own cause, but that it should be determined by reference to an independent authority set up under the appropriate Statute.
In recent years these elementary principles, which 40 years ago nobody in the public service would ever have dreamt of questioning for a moment, have become a little battered. For example, in the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the State took power to take over the citizen's goods and chattels at 1939 prices, and although the cost of chattels went up and up all through the war, the State continued to requisition the citizens' chattels at 1939 prices, with the result that when the war was over many citizens had to replace their chattels at prices, in the case of furniture, anything up to three and four times the amount of money which the State had paid them for the furniture it took. That was a very grave breach of those elementary principles. I speak from recollection but I think that was a Coalition Measure, and therefore I do not attack either side of the House as being exclusively responsible for it, but it was a great departure from those elementary principles.
With every step we have taken since, we have got further and further away from the elementary ground of those principles. For example, when we nationalised coal we fixed a global sum, the amount of which is to be determined by an independent Commission. In that


case, we reserve Principle No. 3, even if we do not reserve Principle No. 2. When we come to deal with the transport industry we break all three principles. We do not relate what we do to any preceding principle. We do not give a fair price but an arbitrary price, and we reject exclusively any right whatever for the aggrieved party, if there are aggrieved parties, to go to an independent tribunal to determine what is or what is not a fair figure.
In the course of my lifetime, I have noticed that Governments which are allowed to get away with arbitrary things become more arbitrary as time goes on. Arbitrariness is a thing that grows with the practice thereof. I say that this Bill as a whole, and this Clause in particular, correspond to no principle whatever which the State in the past has recognised as being applicable to the taking over of undertakings. Where will these concerns be under the Clause? The Clause which the Minister of Transport has moved provides that
… the Commission … shall pay to the authority whose undertaking is transferred the appropriate sum as compensation under this section.
The Clause goes on:
… the expression 'the appropriate sum' means, in relation to any undertaking to which this section applies, such sum as may he specified … by regulation made by the Minister. …
Later, the Clause says that whatever regulations the Minister makes, the total amount of money he pays out shall not exceed a certain overall figure. I characterise the Clause as monstrous. I characterise it as corresponding to no reputable principle whatever. We should determine what we are to pay for a thing before we take it. The Government have no right to take other people's property at their will and pleasure, and then to tell them that later on they will be told what they are to get for it. That is not government; that is robbery. Here no undertaking knows what it is going to have, and even when it gets the regulations later to be issued by the Minister, and gets some sort of idea as to what it might get, it does not know whether it will then run up against the inhibiting barrier of the overall global sum which is to be laid down under this Clause. I regard this not as government but as a dereliction of government. I cannot imagine any preceding Government sitting on that bench,

whatever its complexion—unless it was a Coalition which is the combination of the worst elements of all parties—proposing such a Clause as this or such a Measure as the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the worst elements among the Independents were also included?

Mr. Brown: At any rate I am not subject to any charges in that connection because, by definition, I have forfeited any claim to that invidious, laborious, closely-watched slavery, which is mocked by the name of power!

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, by definition, he is a Coalition in himself?

Mr. Brown: If I am a Coalition in myself, it manifests a solidarity which has been absent in its predecessors. I describe this Clause as literally an unprincipled Clause, and I do not think that the Government ought to be allowed to get away with it, nor with the other compensation provisions here. The first maxim of government—and, I say this with great earnestness, and it should above all be true of a Labour Government—is that one must not do an injustice to one citizen by comparison with another similarly situated. That is a maxim that should underlie all government, and it is utterly violated by the Clause the Minister has moved this afternoon. I hope very much that we shall divide on this, and I announce my firm intention of going into the Lobby against it and any similar provisions.

Mr. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Clause deals with compensation only?

Mr. Brown: That is immaterial to the argument I have made. If anything is done which alters the situation and financial position of the existing owners of the undertaking by transferring it to a Commission, or some other body referred to here, the Government should compensate on the principles I have laid down. This Clause utterly fails to do so and therefore ought to be rejected by any House of Commons which is concerned that government should correspond with some kind of elementary principles.

4. 30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Lewis: I think the local authorities will be grateful to the Minister for making this concession, but I gather that they would like further time to consider the matter of the global sum. I wonder whether, between now and the next stage of the Bill, the Minister will have consultations with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association to enable them to judge fairly on whether this amount of £2,500,000 is rational in the circumstances. I do not think it is worth while antagonising the local authorities for the sake of £1 million or more, in view of what is involved. The local authorities are in favour of the scheme as outlined, and I would impress upon the Minister the necessity of keeping an open mind on the matter and of coming to some definite arrangement on the right amount necessary to achieve the desired result. The local authorities, as under the Electricity Bill, are very interested

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I return to the rather special case of Bristol? The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins) outlined the general estimated effects of this Clause on the citizens of Bristol. If it were a matter of a private individual or a private undertaking, or even of a public company being treated in this manner, it would be serious enough, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider one remark in particular, made by my hon. Friend, as to the effect on the rates. Many of my friends and constituents rely for their livelihood on the activity of business in Bristol and I cannot believe that the Minister, when considering the sum of 200,000, realised that by limiting it to that figure he makes it impossible for this particular authority to get fair compensation. I am sure he had not in mind that the limit would prove a brake or deterrent or discouragement to the industry of a great city. I ask him seriously to reconsider this matter. He said that consultations had taken place. May I ask him now whether any direct consultation took place with the authorities in Bristol? After all, they are more seriously affected by the proposals in this Clause than any other authority is likely to be. I shall be only too pleased to give way, if he will give me an answer.

Mr. Barnes: No.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In that case, I think my argument is strengthened. Quite clearly the position of this authority, with all their activities, destroys the general picture set out by the Minister in putting forward this Clause. As evidence has been produced that it will have an unforeseen effect on this authority, he would be fully justified in reconsidering the matter, to see whether the global sum could not be increased, or some other arrangement made to meet special cases, which are bound to arise, and of which I think the most extreme example will prove to be that of Bristol.

Mr. Champion: The point I want to put is a simple one and relates to the appropriate sum to be specified by regulation. I do not want to ask a question about the overall amount, but I would ask whether provision will be made in the Regulations for the method of payment. It has been put to me that an advantage would accrue to local authorities if payment of the sums due under this severance was made in such a way as to be a diminishing sum over a number of years. This would enable the local authorities to make their rate provisions so as gradually to absorb the overhead expenses and the salaries of the officers affected by the severance. This is of some importance to local authorities, and I hope the Minister will consider it, because if a round sum is to be paid to a local authority straight away, the effect on the rates would be immediate. The better way would be to pay a diminishing sum each year, until the local authority has had time to adjust its rate position.

Mr. McKie: As I listened to the Minister moving the new Clause I thought this might be one of the few occasions during the passage of this Bill, when I could have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the spirit of sweet reasonableness which he seemed inclined to show. Of course I made one important mental reservation on a point about which I will say something in a minute or two. However, as I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) I felt that any congratulations which I might have been inclined to bestow on the Minister would have been out of place, because the hon. Gentleman showed conclusively that this new Clause is founded upon what he considered a very erroneous principle—or rather, on no


principle at all. He maintained, and I agree, that any question of the assessment of compensation should be taken before an independent tribunal. In passing I would say that I wish the hon. Member for Rugby had been here yesterday, when we were putting the case of the shareholders, because I am sure the speech he would have delivered then would have been an admirable one.
As I said, I had one reservation with regard to the congratulations that I might have bestowed on the Minister before listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby. The Minister informed us that no consultations with the Scottish local authorities had taken place. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) chiding his own Minister on this point in as strong language as one would expect from so loyal, faithful, almost subservient a Member on the Government side. I should have thought that on an important occasion like this— important to Scotland—we might have been favoured with the presence on the Treasury Bench of the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the Joint UnderSecretaries. I noticed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food sitting at the far end of the Bench. Of course, she is the only Minister outside the immediate circle of the Scottish Office who has any say at all in the affairs of Scotland, and I thought perhaps her presence there betokened the fact that she was ready to intervene if necessary and tell us why these consultations have not taken place up to the present, and when they will take place. I am still hoping the Minister will say something about that.
The question of the inadequacy of the global sum has been raised not only by Members on the Opposition side, but considerable concern has been shown by Members on both sides. In one sense it is as well that no consultations have yet taken place between the Minister and the representatives of the local authorities of Scotland. Just what proportion of the inadequate global sum of £2,500,000 in respect of local authorities operating passenger road transport services, is it proposed to pay to local authorities in Scotland operating road transport services? Is it to be on the old allocation, or is the right hon. Gentleman to have regard to the fact that road transport in Scotland bulks far larger than in England, because we have fewer railways, and people have to travel

by road to a much greater extent? Is he to make a more generous allocation than has been the case in the past? The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins) asked what conversations have taken place between the Minister and that great seaport—very great in the 18th century, but not so great today. The answer was, as in the case of Scotland, none. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), I think that is "thoroughly unsatisfactory." The port and the harbour facilities in Scotland are of very grave concern to the people of Scotland, and the Minister ought to realise that, having regard to the very large part played by Scottish people in seafaring enterprise. I hope that in the case of the 200,000 compensation the Minister will let the local authorities in Scotland know, what proportion they are to have, arid what proportion of the larger sum—if the Minister softens his heart—he is prepared to give to Scotland.

Mr. Alpass: I have received representations from the city council of Bristol, and from committees of that body, asking me to make a further appeal to the Minister to reconsider this important matter. I am practically in the same position as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). Although I do not, in this Parliament, represent any constituency of the still great city of Bristol—

Mr. McKie: Not so great as it was in the 18th century.

Mr. Alpass: I am sorry that any Scottish hon. Member should attempt to disparage my great city. We claim it is as great today, and greater than at many times in past history, especially as it has a Labour majority on the city council. Although I do not represent, in this Parliament, any constituency of the city of Bristol, a large number of my constituents get their living in that city, and have to use its transport services. Their interests are to a large extent bound up with those of the people who live within the city boundaries, and what affects those who live within the boundaries reacts on my constituents. I wish to reinforce the appeal made to the Minister. We do not want to be ungrateful to the Minister, because he has to some extent reconsidered this matter, but we hope that before he comes to a final decision, he will have consultations with the representatives of this city, and.


cities similarly placed. The compensation has been considered inadequate and, perhaps, in some cases unjust, but I do not like to use that word, because the Minister throughout the Bill has shown that he is possessed of a spirit of fairness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members do not agree with that, because they want something that is more than fair. Because I have confidence in him I want the Minister to say that he will reconsider this matter.

4·45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: There is a point of detail which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider. Subsection (2) of the new Clause provides for the payment of the appropriate sum according to regulations made by the Minister. Clause 64 which provides for matters which might be put down as part of a scheme also provide for the incorporation of compensation provisions. What I want made clear is whether additional compensation under this new Clause will appear when the original scheme is published. As it stands, when a scheme is prepared in connection with a port or group of ports, I do not see how the extra provision can come in. How are the people affected to know what they are to get? It would be helpful to know how the new Clause and regulations link up with the preparations of a scheme under Clause 64. Many hon. Members have asked whether the sums are adequate and as the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins) has said Bristol could swallow the whole lot. The Committee may be interested to know that there are no less than 70 ports and harbours owned by corporations, county urban or rural district councils and if all were affected by the Bill, they would get an average of £2,857 2s. 7½d. each out of this sum. I do not think that would be satisfactory for all of them; whether Aberystwyth or Perth would be satisfied, I do not know. I am encouraged in some ways, by the fact that this figure has been put low because I hope it means that wisdom has been descending on the Minister's head and that he realises the extreme undesirability of including most ports under any scheme. It may mean that he does not mean to interfere with more than one or two ports in the country. It may mean one or two which, for strategic reasons, it is necessary to take over. If

that is the explanation, I should be glad to agree.

Mr. C. Williams: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) did a service to the Committee in raising two points in connection with this Clause. He referred to what is happening far too often—a global sum is being indicated, but that it may not be the sum required. In the second place, he pointed out that what is happening, is that with that sense of unfairness which permeates the mind of every Minister in the Government, they dare not go to arbitration in these matters. They arbitrate themselves. Three or four Members of the Socialist Party have made speeches considerably longer than the speech which I shall make on this matter. I had hoped from the Minister's speech and from my reading of the Clause that the Minister was going to meet the position. I had hoped for that still more because, after following fairly closely the Debates yesterday and today, I believe that the Minister does not really mean to interfere very largely with these local authorities; but from the speeches we have heard with regard to Scotland and Bristol, it seems that there are still grave apprehensions in the minds of the local authorities as to what will happen. Bristol has had to seek outside protection today because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who should be here to defend his constituency, rarely attends the House except to give orders. [Interruption.] Surely, I am within my rights in asking for information as to what the Members representing Bristol think on this occasion, because this matter is likely to affect Bristol to the tune of a very large sum. I wonder why the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is the Member for East Bristol, does not take an interest in Bristol?

Mr. Alpass: Why does not the hon. Gentleman make the same comments on the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley)?

Mr. Williams: I had not finished my speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) is a very hardworked person. When he intervenes in Debates; he does not do so in the interests of hon. Members opposite, and


they get very cross with him. I thought the Minister was going to help us more on this matter. I would like to see the two global sums considerably extended, and I hope that in another place it will be arranged that the power to make regulations will not rest with the Minister, but with an outside, impartial body. I know that the Minister is trying to meet the local authorities on his matter. I do not know how I shall vote if there is a Division. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite hear the crack of the whip and go into the Division Lobby as they are told. I hope the Minister will promise to go further into this question with the local authorities so that when the Bill goes to another place an assurance can be given that he has gone into the matter more' fully with the local authorities.

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid this Debate has widened beyond the purpose of the new Clause. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), the Scottish authorities will be considered. The time available since the Committee stage, and the necessity to get this provision into the Bill, has probably prevented discussion to the extent that would normally have been undertaken. I do not think it would be possible at this stage to have individual consultations with local authorities; it would be quite impracticable to consider the great variety of circumstances that prevail with regard to each municipal transport or dock undertaking. The real difficulty in the whole problem has been the variety in the practices that have prevailed among different local authorities on such matters.

Mr. C. Williams: Mr. C. Williams  indicated dissent.

Mr. Barnes: It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. It is a fact.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has promised to go into the question.

Mr. Barnes: Any point that is raised can be looked into, but that is different from having individual consultations with every local authority. The Government discussed with the accredited representatives of the local authorities many of the points that have been raised today, and decided that it was quite impossible for them to meet points such as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Wilkins), namely, the compensation of local authorities for their Income Tax setoff, or compensation for any local authorities that have taken sums

from their trading operations for the benefit of the rates. It has been impossible to get any basis of agreement on a variety of circumstances of that character. It was in consideration of all those matters that, eventually, the Government agreed to try to meet the problem of the increased overhead charges which local authorities would have to meet for the purpose of adjusting their municipal accounts. The hon. Member for South Derby (Mr. Champion) asked whether such compensation could be paid on a diminishing payment principle. That is a matter that can be looked into and discussed later.
In the remarks which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) made, he was not quite seized of the whole of the problem. I would refer him to the fact that in Clause 25 the main principle of compensation for local authorities is met, and the appropriate sums referred to in the new Clause have nothing to do with the method adopted in the Bill of compensating local authorities for the transfer of municipal undertakings to State undertakings. In Clause 25 the whole of the interest and debt charges of the local authorities on any undertaking are fully met, and we are here dealing with the transfer of an undertaking from one public body to another public body. The citizens of our great local authorities are not losing possession of the property that is being transferred; that property is being merged with other transferred property, and the total public property that will be held by any group of citizens in Bristol, Glasgow, Birmingham, or elsewhere, will be considerably enlarged. It is true that the ownership of their property will be spread over the whole community, but the principle of public ownership is retained in this Bill. Therefore, it appears to me, that many of the remarks made by the hon Member were beside the point.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In principle, it does not matter two hoots whether the transfer is that of a bit of property from a private individual to the State or from a municipal authority to the State. I wish we got more into the habit of arguing in terms of principle. I can conceive of a case where a local authority has an under taking—

Mr. Barnes: I thought this was to be an intervention on the part of the hon Member, and not a speech

Mr. Brown: I do not want to be unreasonable, and I shall be as brief in my intervention as I can. The undertaking to which I was referring is making good profits in relief of rates. We propose to take it over, and we shall have the right to take it over. I assert that we should compensate upon some basis of principle. If there is a dispute as to what the right compensation should be, we ought not to be judge and jury in our own case.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member overlooks the fact that there is another principle involved in the illustration which he gave. If the local authority used any surplus derived from the trading of the whole of the citizens, in order to relieve rates for a specific section of the citizens, they would perhaps be making a breach in another principle. I do not think that the illustration in that respect can he carried very far. I was pointing out to the hon. Member something which I thought it was necessary for him to understand so that he might avoid making similar statements in public in future. Interest and debt charges are being taken over by the Bill The principle of public property is in no way interfered with.
What we are discussing on the proposed new Clause, are representations made to me by a number of Members on both sides of the Committee on behalf of their various local authorities. I am dealing with a legitimate and practical point here. Those hon. Members pointed out that part of the overhead liabilities in their localities, such as those in respect of municipal buildings, are often charged to the trading undertakings. Sometimes the salaries of municipal officers are so charged. In meeting their interest and debt charges I am not, and the Government are not, dealing with the residual expense which the local authorities will have to meet in those directions. The Government undertook to consider those representations, and the proposed new Clause is designed to meet that specific point.
I do not attempt to deny that this proposal will not be a solution satisfactory to the local authorities. They will want to raise many other points. I am not meeting those points. The Government so far, cannot meet those points, and therefore in our discussion this afternoon, we must limit ourselves to the extent to which the Government, at the moment, are prepared

to go. This sum of £2,500,000 has bee arrived at on the basis of five or six years' purchase of one per cent. of the gross receipts of the local authorities' passenger transport undertakings. The sum c £200,000 is for municipal dock compensation. It does not cover all the dock concerned but only municipal docks. The sum has been arrived at on a similar principle. It is considered that it will b sufficient to taper off, and to enable the local authorities to make the necessary adjustments in this direction.
My hon. Friend the Member to Southampton (Mr. T. Lewis), while wet corning the decision, said that local authorities were not able to judge whether the compensation would be adequate am fair. I would remind hon. Members that all we are doing at this stage is to settle a global sum with regard to municipal road passenger services. Municipal docks and harbours cannot be dealt with at the present moment in detail, because they are subject to area schemes under which provision is fully made, particularly for local authorities, for the fullest opportunity of consultation with the Commission as to the volume, method and adjustment of matters of this description.

Mr. T. Lewis: The point is whether the £2,500,000 is sufficient. Before the amount is finally fixed, would not my right hon. Friend consult the associations representing local authorities?

Mr. Barnes: I have already pointed out that officers representing municipal corporations have had discussions with my Department and were responsible for coming to this figure with my Depart- mental officers. I agree that there was not time to refer the matter back to the association as such, for them to come to a definite decision, but I have no reason to think at this stage that they will not accept the figure as a fair basis.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it was impossible for him to fix in detail what sums were to be paid, because the schemes were not yet available. Surely that is an argument for revising the proposed sum when the schemes are available. It appears to me that the Minister, this House and the local authorities are being left in the air They do not know what the schemes are to be The figure in the Bill therefore just makes nonsense.

Mr. Barnes: I do not accept that argument at all. It appeared to me when this matter was submitted to me for my approval that the sum ought to be adequate to meet the liability.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We do not know what the liability will be.

Mr. Barnes: We do not know what the liability will be for each particular undertaking, but we know the gross receipts of the aggregated transport undertakings. We arrived at that sum on the basis of the overall aggregate receipts, and that appears to me to be a fair basis of measurement in a case like this. I do not see any other method or process by which to come to an aggregate sum, that is, if we want to get to grips with the problem and not leave it over indefinately, ultimately for the arbitrament of the Minister. This is an attempt to fix an assured sum in the Bill. If there is still undue anxiety on the part of hon. Members I will undertake to look at the matter again between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place. If we are to make progress in matters of this character, it is essential that we should get a decision in the Bill at least. Its modification is all that I can promise to consider in subsequent stages. If that promise is satisfactory to hon. Members, I hope that the Committee will now give me the Clause.

Mr. Wilkins: May I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to a decision on the point? I would ask that between now and the Third Reading he should consider the point put to him by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. OrrEwing). Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to meet a deputation on the subject from interested parties? He said he had had a deputation representing local authorities intimately concerned in the matter. Would he receive a deputation from some other representative bodies?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot agree to meet representatives of any particular groups of local authorities. I think that would add to my difficulties. I have already met the representatives of the Municipal Authorities' Association, and many weeks ago we had discussions in which the whole of these problems which have been raised in the Committee were adequately considered. Subsequently the same body of persons met the Ministers who are con-

cerned with other matters, and it was arising out of those consultations that eventually the Government decision was made on the question of some compensation for overhead and severance. There was adequate consultation between the Government and the proper municipal representatives in coming to this decision, but in the framing of the Clause and the fixing of the global sum there was not sufficient time, between the Committee stage and the submission of this Clause, for the decision to be referred back and the actual sums to be approved by the authorities. There will not be time between now and Third Reading to undertake such consultations, but before this Clause is reached in another place I will undertake to have another look at the problem and consider more fully the views that have been expressed on all sides.

Mr. Maclay: Could the Minister make it clear that, when a scheme is made public and an opportunity is given for protests, the allocation of money under this Clause will appear in the scheme? That is the point I was trying to make. This is a regulation-making matter and the other is a scheme-making matter. It may be an obvious point, but it is essential that we should know the total sum an authority might receive under a scheme so that the various interests could be taken into account.

Mr. Barnes: I do not see how I could undertake at this stage that any particular matter should be stated in a scheme.

Mr. Assheton: Since I spoke earlier in this discussion powerful contributions have been made to the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), by various hon. Members from Bristol, and by other hon. Members behind me. It was observed by someone on this side of the House that the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was not present, and it was then suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) was not present. I am glad to say that the moment my right hon. Friend heard that something affecting the city of Bristol was coming up, he left the important business he was transacting, and came hurrying back—

Mr. Alpass: He had to be sent for.

Mr. Assheton: —to 'make absolutely certain that nothing should be done which


would adversely affect the interests of the city he so ably represents. After hearing this discussion it is quite clear that the Minister has done the right thing in saying that he will look at this matter again before the Clause comes up in another place, and have further consultations to see whether he cannot do better than he has done up to now. I am not one of those who believe that global sums are likely to prove a satisfactory method of dealing with these difficulties. If you start off by saying what the total bill is, and then find out what the different items are, and if the different items happen to add up to more than the total amount of money available, somebody has to go short. Once you start working on that principle you are very likely to get into trouble. In view of the fact that this Clause is one which we pressed hard for during the Committee stage, and in view of the undertaking which the Minister has given, we on this side of the House will not divide against it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Bodies whose under- takings are transferred to Commission.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 122, line 28, at the end, to add:
The Hertfordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Company.
This canal company was overlooked in compiling the Schedule, and I now beg to move that it be inserted.

Mr. Frank Byers: I would like to ask the Minister how it came about that this company was omitted. Can we have an assurance that because we have hurried on with this Bill, because the Guillotine has come down time and time again in Committee, there are not similar omissions which have not been found out? In other words, has the Minister made any special effort to check up to ensure that this Schedule is now all-inclusive?

Mr. Barnes: Generally, yes, but as a matter of fact this canal is derelict. We discovered however that it might rank for payment and therefore included it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole: This raises an interesting point about the posh

tion of canals under this Bill. I am in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman—although I daresay he has not seen my letter—about a derelict canal in my own constituency. We feel very strongly that sufficient attention has not been given to the canals. That in fact is what has happened here. The attention given to the position of the canals when this Bill was being drafted was totally inadequate to the scope of the problem, and I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to go into the whole question of canals and give it more serious consideration than he has done in the past. It is just one more example of the cursory kind of examination which has been given to this problem.

Mr. W. J. Brown: What on earth are we doing, nationalising derelict canals? Is it the Minister's intention to take this derelict property and make it into an up-to-date one, or is it to be preserved as a memorial to this Bill?

Mr. Barnes: I must confess I have some difficulty in discovering what principle is involved in this.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I hope that my colleague the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) is not anxious to put more into the Bill than is already in it. It seems to me that anything which is excluded will be in a fair way to succeed when we come to be nationalised.

Mr. David Renton: As this matter was somewhat rushed in Committee and was the subject of an oversight on the part of several people concerned on both sides, the position of the Weaver Navigation Trustees was not discussed in Committee. I wonder whether the Minister has had an opportunity, since the Committee stage was concluded, of considering the rather peculiar position of the Weaver Navigation Trustees?

Mr. Barnes: Although that point does not arise on this Amendment, perhaps with the permission of the Chair I might say that I have met the Weaver Navigation Trustees and have had their case submitted to me. I am advised that it will remain within the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Securities to be replaced by British Transport stock.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 126, tine 59, at the end, to add:


The Hertfordshire and Gloucestershire Canal Company
7½% preference shares of £20 (fully paid).Original shares of £140.

Mr. Assheton: In view of what the Minister recently told us, namely, that he was acquiring a derelict canal, I think it would be interesting to the Committee to know at what price these original shares of £140 now stand.

Mr. Barnes: As a matter of fact they are not marketed. This is a liability we are taking over with a railway company.

Mr. Assheton: Whether they are marketed or not, that does not answer my question. There are many shares which are not dealt with in any market, and may not be quoted in any market, but they may have a value, and it would he interesting to know the value of these shares.

Mr. Harrison: Would the Minister inform the House what amount of money is involved in this transaction?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot; they are not quoted, and therefore a matter of this description will have to go to the arbitration tribunal.

Mr. Assheton: I quite understand that, but surely the Minister is not contemplating buying an important property like this without having counted the cost? He must, at any rate, have made some inquiries as to the value of the property. He has told us it was a derelict canal. He has given us no reason why he wants to buy it. He must have made up his mind it was worth doing, and must have calculated an amount of some sort that he was likely to pay for it. It is true that, under this Bill as drafted, there will be a decision later, as to the exact prices to be paid, but I am sure the Minister must have some figure in his mind as to what he is going to pay for it.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman said it was a canal taken over by a railway company. Perhaps, it was allowed to become derelict in the interests of the railway company.

Mr. Barnes: I was going to say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) that he knows a lot about this. In this case, I am taking over a liability.

Mr. Assheton: But if the Minister is taking over a liability, I am afraid I may suggest to my hon. Friends that we should divide against the proposal; because I cannot see any reason for taking over this liability, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no suggestion why he should do so.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If the right hon. Gentleman is taking over a liability, surely he has not to pay somebody for doing so?

Mr. Barnes: I must refer hon. Members to Clause 13. This canal is part of the property of the railway company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) knows, as all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee know, that all the properties of the railway companies are to be transferred on the vesting date, 1st January. As I indicated when I moved the insertion of this company, we discovered that it had been omitted, and that it was desirable that it should be put into the Schedule.

Mr. Byers: As one who supports the nationalisation of the railways, I find this a very worrying situation. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that this is the only liability he is taking over[HON. MEMBERS: No."]—or are there, in fact, many other liabilities?

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Orders giving effect to Schemes.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DAVID RENTON:

In page 132, line 4, after the first "case," insert:
not being the case of a scheme under section sixty-one of this Act
In page 132, In line 11, after "case," insert:
not being the case of a scheme under section sixty-one of this Act.
In page 132, In line 12, at the end, insert:
(d) in any other case—

(i) it specifies the undertaking or undertakings or the part or parts of the under-


taking or undertakings to be transferred and the date of tansfer, which shall be a date not later than twelve months after date on which the scheme takes effect; and
(ii) it makes provision for compensation to the person theretofore carrying on the undertaking in accordance with Part II of this Schedule."


In page 133, line 17, at the end, insert:

Part II

1. in respect of any vehicle vesting in the Commission or any other body by virtue of the scheme, the scheme shall make provision for payment to the person theretofore carrying on the undertaking (in this Schedule referred to as "the Transferor") of compensation equal to the cost as at the date of transfer of replacing the vehicle by a new vehicle of similar type, adjusted however—

(a) by deducting where one or more complete years have elapsed between the date on which the vehicle was registered under the Roads Act, 1920, and the date of transfer, fifteen percentum of the said cost in respect of the first year, and in respect of each subsequent year fifteen percentum of the said cost as reduced by the total deductions falling to be made in respect of the previous years; and
(b) if it is established that the physical condition of the vehicle is materially better or worse at the date of transfer than the normal physical condition "of a vehicle of the same type and age, by adding to or deducting from the said cost, as reduced by the deductions, if any, falling to be made under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, such amount as fairly represents the difference between the value of the vehicle and the value of a normal vehicle of the same type and age.

2. In respect of any property vesting in the Commission or any other body by virtue of the scheme other than a vehicle, the scheme shall make provision for the payment to the transferor of compensation equal to the amount which the property would fetch if sold in the open market, estimated as at the date of transfer and as if this Act had not been passed.
3. For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1945, the transfer effected by the scheme shall not be deemed to be a sale.
4. In respect of the total or partial cessation of business caused to the Transferor by the operation of a scheme, the scheme shall make provision for payment to the Transferor of eight times the average net annual profit calculated by reference to the average net annual profit for the ten financial years of the undertaking immediately preceding the date of transfer.
5. For the purpose of calculating the sum payable under the preceding paragraph, the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 6 of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall apply, subject to the following modifications

(a) for the word "three," whenever that word occurs, there shall be substituted the word "ten";
(b) references to the Commission shall be construed as including reference to any body

other than the Commission to whom the undertaking or part of the undertaking of the Transferor is transferred;
(c) references to the notice of acquisition shall be construed as references to the scheme;
(d) paragraph 4 shall have effect as if the words "of the Transferor," were inserted after the word "property," where that word secondly occurs;
(e) paragraphs 5 (3) (b) shall have effect as if the words "of the Transferor," were inserted after the word "property."

6. The scheme shall make provision for payment to the Transferor in cases where

(a) the activities of an undertaking, part of which is transferred by a scheme, consist immediately before the date of transfer partly of the operation of passenger road services by public service vehicles within the area to which the scheme relates and partly of other activities within or outside the area; and
(b) the undertaking so far as it consists of those other activities, or any of them, is carried on on or after the date of transfer; and
(c) it appears that the proportion which the overhead expenses incurred in carrying on that undertaking bear to the total expenses incurred in carrying it on will be greater on or after the date of transfer than before that date by reason of -the transfer resulting from the scheme.

of such compensation in respect of severance as fairly represents the burden of that increase over the five years beginning with the date of transfer."

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think it would be to the advantage of the Committee if we took the four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) together.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 132, line 4, after the first "case". to insert:
not being the case of a scheme under section sixty-one of this Act
As you have suggested, Mr. Beaumont, I think it would be convenient if we took this and the next three Amendments together. Yesterday, the Committee spent a good deal of time discussing compensation for railways, and road haulage undertakings of local authorities, to be taken over. We come now to consider compensation for those road passenger transport undertakings which are not owned by local authorities. As hon. Members will readily appreciate, there is a considerable amount involved in the compensation of those undertakings, most of which, presumably, will eventually, though, perhaps, not for many years, be


taken over by the Transport Commission. It is difficult to learn the total sums involved, but it will give the Committee some idea when I mention that the various undertakings possess, between them, perhaps £15 million of subscribed capital, and that their total capital assets may be from £40 million to £50 million.
This is a series of Amendments of great substance; and, perhaps, it is fortunate that they can all be dealt with together as one problem, instead of being separated, as some of our other problems have been. With regard to the other types of undertakings that have had to be compensated, railways, canals, and so on, there has been, with the one exception pointed out by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J Brown), some kind of basis of compensation, some principle, some method. But with regard to the compensation of these road passenger undertakings, there is, in my submission, no method at all. It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Minister. He is to be the judge in his own cause, and there is to be no appeal from the decision which he makes in the matter. Not only is that the position, but that uncertainty may prevail for many years to come, because we do not know how long it may be, as I say, before these undertakings are to be nationalised.
I may remind hon. Members in a few words of the background of the Bill, with regard to taking over these road undertakings other than those owned by local authorities. Hon. Members will recall that under Clause 61 the Minister has power to confirm an area scheme for taking over the passenger transport services in a particular area; and the way in which he exercises that power is prescribed by the Eighth Schedule, to which I direct the attention of hon. Members, because it is by these Amendments to the Eighth Schedule that we are attempting to offer what we consider will be a workable and fair scheme in substitution for the mere discretion of the Minister. In the Eighth Schedule we find that the Minister may not confirm the scheme unless provision is made for compensation, and that condition is also applied by Clause 61. We need not trouble much about the first paragraph of the Schedule, because that deals with compensation to

be received by local authorities; and we find in it that the compensation is to be assessed, as nearly as possible, in accordance with the principles laid down in Part II of the Bill, which deals with railways and canals. The passenger undertakings of local authorities are to be dealt with in the same way as railways and canals.
When we come to paragraphs (1) (b) and (c) of the Schedule we find the way in which operators, other than local authorities, are to be dealt with. The effect of those paragraphs (b) and (c) is two-fold. First, the Minister decides what sort of transfer of the undertaking has taken place. I submit that that means, in effect, that he himself can decide what form of transfer is to take place, because the transfer cannot take place unless he approves the scheme under which it is to be effected. He can decide that the transfer is to be treated as though it was a transfer under Part II, dealing with railways and canals; or he can decide that it is to be a transfer under Part III dealing with road haulage transfers— road haulage of goods. It is quite obvious that a shrewd and, from the point of view of the Exchequer, a sensible Minister will decide upon that form of transfer which is most beneficial to the finances of the Government. He will not necessarily bear in mind, being judge in his own cause, that form of transfer which is most fair to the people concerned. I would commend the argument to the attention of hon. Members because millions of pounds' worth of their constituents' property and of British people's property is at issue in this matter, and it is not a matter to be treated lightly at all. The Minister can, if he likes, decide that the form of transfer is not in any way analogous with a transfer under Part II or Part III. It is for him to decide and nobody else has any say in the matter.

ROYAL ASSENT

5.32 p.m.

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD (Vice-Admiral Sir GEOFFREY BLAKE) being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.


The House went; and, having re-turned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Act, 1947.
2. Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Act, 1947.
3. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1947.
4. Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1947.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (recommitted) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Orders giving effect to Schemes.)

Amendment proposed: In page 132, line 4, after the first "case," insert
not being the case of a scheme under Section sixty-one of this Act.'

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton: As I was saying before we were called to another place, the effect of the Eighth Schedule, so far as compensation is concerned, would seem to be that the Minister has unfettered discretion to do what he likes. He can choose that form of transfer which seems most advantageous to the Government, or he can decide that there is no analogy with the forms of transfer mentioned in Parts II and III of the Bill, and can award what compensation he pleases. I do not suggest that any Minister would dream of doing so, but it is legally possible for a Minister to say, "Oh well, I do not think I need give anything more than a token payment in this case." That a Minister should have such wide powers is, I suggest, utterly wrong. The Bill should not be allowed to leave this Committee with such wide and indeterminate powers in the hands of the Minister.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely, these schemes under which compensation would be payable have to be laid before Parliament, and are subject to a special Parliamentary procedure? The Minister could not act in the arbitrary way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Renton: That is so; the schemes are subject to special Parliamentary procedure, but the people concerned will not have an opportunity 'of making representations until the matter has gone a long way. Surely, instead of leaving it merely to a large Parliamentary majority, who, in many cases, will not be able to go into the details of every scheme, it would be far better for this Committee to lay down a principle and to prescribe a method in the Bill. Of course, if it were a very big scheme, which affected a local authority of which a Member of Parliament was a member, then it might get consideration, but it has to be remembered that these schemes will be vast and complicated affairs. They will include a large number of operators, and there will be many separate cases for consideration under them. It is, I suggest, placing a tremendous burden on the House to have to go into the details of every single case of compensation, to see whether or not the Minister has followed a just principle. As I have said, it would be far better for this Committee to lay down a principle in the Bill instead of leaving it to chance whether or not the various proposals with regard to compensation contained in each scheme are just or not.
The purpose underlying this and other Amendments is a constructive one, and we are putting constructive proposals before the Committee. Those proposals are contained in the Amendments, with which I will deal briefly. The first two Amendments are merely drafting Amendments, and are very short. I need not trouble the Committee with them. The third Amendment, in page 132, line 12, ensures that when a scheme comes into operation, there shall be no delay in taking over the undertakings to be acquired under it. We say that people should not be kept in a state of uncertainty for an indefinite period of time, and that the Sword of Damocles should not hang over their heads for, at the least, three years and, at the most, as long as 10 years. The period would depend on how quickly the work of implementing this Bill proceeds. There is going to be a vast amount of work, and we say that is much fairer to the people concerned to have a definite period laid down within which the transfer must take place after the scheme has come into effect. Moreover, there is a danger that unless a period of this kind is fixed, the value of the business as measured by its


average annual profit—with which I will deal in a minute—will depreciate. One never knows, but it might even be intentionally depreciated by putting the people who are to be taken over at a disadvantage pending the transfer.
I now turn to our proposed new Part II of the Eighth Schedule, which contains specific proposals as to the method of compensation. Broadly speaking, it is the same method of compensation as that contained in Part II of the Bill for compensating road hauliers when their businesses are taken over. But we have inserted several modifications which arise from the fact that a road hauliers business naturally differs from the business of operating a bus company or village coaches, and so on. Paragraph (r) of our new Part II of the Eighth Schedule provides for compensation for vehicles. The basis is the same as in the case of road hauliers under Clause 46, except that, instead of a depreciation of 20 per cent., we propose that the depreciation should be 15 per cent. per annum. The reason for that is that buses and coaches have, as is well known, a better expectation of life than have road haulage vehicles. That fact is recognised by the Income Tax authorities, because the allowance for depreciation in the case of goods vehicles is as much as 31 per cent., and in the case of passenger vehicles only 25 per cent. We are making no new departure in making that distinction.
Moreover, buses and regular coaches— and we shall be concerned much more with regular services than with the occasional contract services—run to regular time-tables, and provision has to be made for their regular maintenance. As is also well known, unless that regular maintenance is kept going the vehicle examiners will very soon, and very rightly, be on the heels of the operator concerned. I think it is fair to say that better craftsmanship, more work and more money are put into passenger vehicles than into goods vehicles. There are many passenger vehicles which, as a result of the better work put into them and the more careful handling, have been on the roads for 12 years and even longer, and which, when they have had money spent on reconditioning their engines and repair of their bodywork, are in a perfectly serviceable condition. So we say that the compensation should be the same as for

road haulage vehicles, except that there should be a depreciation of 15 per cent. instead of 20 per cent.
The compensation for property other than vehicles is exactly the same as in a road haulage business, and, therefore, I do not propose to deal with that at all. It is dealt with in paragraph 2 of our proposed new Part II of the Eighth Schedule. Paragraph 3 is technical, but it is probably necessary to ensure that the compensation for physical assets, whether vehicles or otherwise, does not attract Income Tax under the scheme for balancing charges under Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1945. If the Parliamentary Secretary can show that it is unnecessary to provide specially for that contingency, or would give an assurance that these matters will not be treated under the scheme for balancing charges and so attract Income Tax, we shall be quite prepared to drop that point from these proposals.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the proposed new Part II of the Schedule deal with compensation for total or partial cessation of business on transfer, and do so on the same principle as for a road haulage business—that is, the principle as laid down in Clause 46—except that we suggest that the average net annual profit should be multiplied not by from two to five times but by eight times. The Committee will remember the discussion which took place yesterday. I do not wish to cover the same ground again, but I would remind the Committee of the powerful argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) with regard to the number of years' purchase payable for various types of vehicles. I would remind the Committee also that his argument applies with even greater strength when a passenger transport business is taken over than when a goods transport business is taken over, for the very obvious reason which I can almost quote out of the mouths of hon. Members opposite, that a goods haulage business is a fluctuating one, and that very often in a passenger transport business, as hon. Members opposite have so often reminded us, there is either a monopoly or a virtual monopoly. There is a certainty about a passenger transport business, and that certainty should naturally be taken into account in deciding upon what basis the


average net annual profit should be multiplied. A passenger transport business is, undoubtedly, a very stable and certain business; it is a safe investment which many people, and sometimes small people, have regarded as such, and we say that the system of compensation should make allowance for that fact.
Paragraph 5 of the proposed new Part II incorporates the provisions of the Ninth Schedule regarding the ascertainment, from the point of view of the number of years that are to be taken into account as a comparison with previous years' figures. It will be remembered that in the case of road hauliers, the Bill says that three previous years shall be taken into account. We say that instead of taking an average of the three previous years, it would be much more fair and certain to take the previous 10 years. I am not very insistent upon this figure of 10 years, but it does allow for the possibility that by the time the business is taken over, 10 years from the introduction of this Bill may possibly have elapsed. It is possible, and we have to bear that in mind. I do not think there will be very much quarrel in principle over this point. It is not likely to lead to any considerable increase in the amount of compensation payable, but it will lead to a greater certainty that a fair basis is being chosen. Under paragraph 6 we suggest the same compensation for severance as is provided in Clause 46 for road hauliers, and there is no need for me to develop that matter.
In conclusion, I would ask hon. Members to give to this matter such attention as is possible in the short notice which they take to consider these Amendments, and to realise that we are here dealing with a large amount of carefully invested capital. I agree that a lot of that capital is held by the railway companies, but there are several millions of pounds of it which are not held by the railway companies at all, and which are held by investors— some large, but many of them small people—who have decided that the safest way to invest their life's earnings is to invest them in a passenger transport service which is certain to earn money. When it comes to deciding how those people should be compensated, it is repugnant to me that we should leave it to the uncertainty of what the Minister thinks right, checked up not by any appeal to an appeal tribunal but by the further

uncertainty as to whether or not, when the suggested compensation has been included in a scheme, some hon. Member will be able to convince the whole of the other 600 Members that the basis of compensation is unfair. That is what it amounts to, and I suggest that this is a matter to which the Government should give further consideration. It will give far more satisfaction in the country if it is known that, instead of the uncertainty to which I have referred, there is some carefully worked out principle upon which this compensation will be paid, and I commend to the Committee these proposals which are intended to be constructive.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I wish to support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) in regard to the four Amendments we are now discussing. I would point out that this is, in fact, as far as we can see, the only opportunity we shall have of discussing these proposals under the Eighth Schedule, which affects such a large number of people in this country. In Standing Committee the Guillotine fell before we came to them, and at the rate we are going it will be a miracle if we are able to consider this Part of the Bill again by 9.30 tomorrow evening. One of the hopes we had when we left the Standing Committee was that something would come out of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary at our last Sitting, when he said that he was in consultation with the industry. We had hoped that by this stage of the Bill he might have been able to produce some concrete proposals for the Committee, because I believe the paragraphs of the Eighth Schedule are about as vague as any in the Bill. It is our wish to try to undertake the task of putting something more concrete before the Committee to be decided one way or the other before we go further with this Bill.
The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) made an interjection just now, suggesting that this part of the Schedule was subject to special Parliamentary procedure. However, I put it to him and to the Parliamentary Secretary, that we on this side of the Committee feel most strongly that it is our function to make clear the principles which underlie this part of the Bill before we send it forward, and not merely, in the months or years to come, to allow various schemes


to come before the Committee for detailed consideration. Many of us on this side of the Committee have a certain amount of confidence in the wish of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to do justice. However, I should also point out that many of the interjections yesterday from back benchers opposite showed us that there are very differing views in the Committee on the whole question of compensation. Without going into that question in detail, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that when there are hon. Members behind him who have such intense views against those whose enterprise and thrift in the last 20 or 30 years have done so much to build up this great industry, and when there are such strong views against their being, as we see it, rewarded with due equity—equity being understood as hitherto—we wish to put something more definite on paper before the Bill leaves the Committee.
I recall the reply of the Minister himself when he assured me, as a result of an interjection, that his view was that the community, through the Government of the day, has a right to take away the property of an individual without arbitration. That is certainly not the view of equity held by myself and my hon. Friends. Until principles like that are agreed between us, I do not think the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary can expect us to allow this Schedule to go forward as unclear as it is at the present moment. I am not proposing to go into the details of the suggestions we put forward, which have been so clearly put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. But I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this most carefully, and when he comes to reply to give us some indication that there will be something on which the Committee can vote more definitely than the very vague paragraphs which are before us at present.

Mr. Oliver Poole: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) has explained the four Amendments we are now discussing with that clarity which those of us who were on the Standing Committee have come to expect from him. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), I do not intend to go too deeply into the actual details of these Amendments, which have been explained, and which I think are fully understood,

if not by all hon. Members opposite, at least by the Parliamentary Secretary. During our deliberations last night, the Minister referred to certain negotiations which he was having with various outside interests, and we had a slight exchange of words on the merits or demerits of those negotiations. I understand —and the Parliamentary Secretary referred to it in the Standing Committee— that he has been having certain negotiations with associations, or groups of interests involved in the passenger transport industry with regard to their compensation. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say exactly how far those negotiations have developed now, because the information I have is that they are not proceeding very well. Perhaps he would deal with that in some detail.
As far as I am concerned—and I think I speak for my hon. Friends—we press these Amendments, although we do not wish in any way to prejudice any negotiations the Minister is having with the passenger transport industry. It is quite obvious that the people with whom he deals represent, on the whole, the larger bus owners. We feel that we have an equal responsibility and duty towards the smaller bus owners. Whatever may be said, and however much criticism may be levelled against the proposals contained in our proposed Part II of the Schedule, and the other Amendments which we are discussing, they have at least one merit, namely, that they produce a scheme of sorts. Supposing, for better or for worse, our Amendments were accepted in toto, at least the bus passenger transport industry would know exactly where it stood. That would be a very great improvement on their present position, because the situation is that the basis of compensation is entirely in the hands of the Minister. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) had some rather caustic comments to make on that subject in regard to a previous Amendment. It is a very unsatisfactory situation.
Having read the Clauses in the Bill, and having listened to the Second Reading speeches and the deliberations in Standing Committee on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in fact, the complex problem of how to compensate this particular industry had not been fully considered at the time the Bill was put into print. It seems to me, in view of the large amount of money involved and the


very great importance of this matter to the country, it is essential that this problem should be cleared up. There is one reason which I think would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite more than that of equity and fairness, and that is, that it will, of necessity, be some considerable time before the bus companies are taken over, or, alternatively, it will be a considerable time—maybe three to five years, I do not know—before the Transport Commission has got out a comprehensive scheme and all the bus companies are operating within that scheme. Therefore, in the interim period it is essential that these people should operate efficiently, both for the good of the Commission and the good of the public they serve. I cannot see how we can expect people to operate efficiently, and to keep their vehicles running on a proper service, if they know that in a specified time—or even in an unspecified time; as I say, three to five years—their businesses will be taken away, and yet they do not know what the compensation will be.
When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I ask him to tell us, first of all, how the negotiations which the Minister is having are progressing; and secondly, if he refuses our scheme, to say that he will put up another definite scheme which, if it cannot be discussed here, can at least be discussed in another place. It is quite wrong that a matter of this importance should be agreed outside the Committee, and then should be brought forward at this stage of the Bill, when there will be no further opportunity to discuss it in this Committee. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give consideration to our Amendments, and in any case not to let the Bill go any further while leaving the compensation of passenger operating companies in this very unsatisfactory state.

Mr. W. J. Brown: It seems to me that we are doubly unfortunate in the' conditions under which we have this Debate this afternoon. It is unfortunate first, that we are having it on a Bill which lumps road transport in with rail transport, although, in fact, different considerations apply to the two. It is unfortunate, secondly, in the sense that these compensation provisions, not having been dealt with in Standing Committee, are now allowed a completely inadequate amount of time in which to be dealt with in Committee here.
The prospect that looms ahead is of an ill-considered Bill—ill-debated in the House and in Committee—being thrust on the Statute Book by the invocation of an automatic Parliamentary majority with a complete disregard as to whether what they are doing is fair or otherwise. That seems to me to be an extremely unfortunate position in which to put the House of Commons, and before I say a word or two in detail about the Amendment I should like to make this comment.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Member to do that. He has really been making a Second Reading speech and I must ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendments which are under discussion.

Mr. Poole: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Surely it is not your Ruling that hon. Members are not to be able to comment on the fact that insufficient time has been given to the discussion of the details of these recommendations for compensation?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not my intention to prevent any hon. Member from making such a comment. Comment is one matter, but to go into great detail would be quite out of Order.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I draw your attention, Mr. Beaumont, to the point that, whether we like it or not, we cannot help getting some parts of this Bill mixed up with others? In this very Clause, an Amendment to which we are now discussing, the test which the Minister of Transport is to apply to the compensation in respect of particular schemes is whether they compare reasonably with compensation laid down in other parts of the Bill. It is not my fault or yours, Mr. Beaumont, that the Bill comes to us in this way, but we are having here a piece of legislation by reference—reference to another Part of the Bill. I will try to be very brief about this but it is essential to the point I wish to put.
When we are dealing with rail transport and fixing the terms of compensation for it we are entitled to have regard to the classic argument that at a given stage in capitalist development private enterprise ceases to be private enterprise and becomes private monopoly. It is argued that competition breeds the combine, and that if you are to have the


combine it is better that it should be under public control. Accepting that argument, I think the case in the Bill for one half of the problem—the railways—is made out. But by these very same arguments it is not made out when we are dealing with road transport.
Road transport is not a monopoly. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is only a monopoly where the present Lord President of the Council made it one in the City of London.

Mr. Ernest Davies: May I ask the hon. Member if he is aware of the Tilling Combine which owns a very large percentage of the road transport in the Midlands, the North and, in fact, in the United Kingdom generally?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Strangely enough, by a remarkable chance of good luck, I had heard of this Thomas Tilling, and I was dimly aware that he was in a big way of business in road transport. But it is one thing to say that a concern is in a big way of business and another to say that it is a monopoly. A monopoly exists only when no one is free to set up in competition with it.

Mr. Mitchison: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that I only encourage the bad lads on that side. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to make a point I will give way.

Mr. Mitchison: I simply wanted to ask the hon. Member if he believed in letting monopolies grow into complete monopolies or whether he would not prefer to catch them while they were growing.

Mr. Brown: The thing about arresting them when they are growing is that you may arrest the process of growth. The older exponents of Socialism taught that one merit of the capitalist system, in so far as it had merits, was that it did develop industry up to the point where the State ought to take it over. It is a point that this later generation of Socialists —who seem to me not to be Socialists at all but mechanical reiterators of uncharitableness—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman would find it extremely difficult to bring his present remarks into any relation to the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Except in this sense, Mr. Beaumont. Under the proposal we are now considering we are discussing the terms of compensation to be given to a particular area. That area is, by and large, a private enterprise area, and not one in which what certain hon. Gentlemen would call an antisocial monopoly has been established. Under the terms of this Clause, to which the hon. Gentleman has moved an Amendment, the terms of compensation in one case are to be related to those in the other, and that is the criterion which the Minister of Transport must follow. I think it is unfortunate that we have to do this in such a short space of time. I should like to remind my hon. Friends opposite, if they will allow me to do so, that when the present programme of nationalisation is carried through, there will still be 80 per cent. of the industry in this country in private hands.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member but he must not refer to proposals for future nationalisation.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I respectfully submit, Mr. Beaumont, that I was not making such a reference. I was merely making a point which might occur to anyone in this Committee that if, at the end of our programme, 80 per cent. of industry is still to be in private hands, it will be as well if we make it clear that we are not indisposed to be fair. If, in the circumstances I have mentioned, we create the impression that the State will treat subjects arbitrarily and unfairly, I submit that that would be a most unfortunate thing.
I come now to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can understand the relief which is manifest on the benches opposite. The great advantage of this Amendment—although it is not one which I would have proposed myself—is that it does settle something. Under the Schedule as it now stands nothing is settled. The owners of property in a particular category are to have that property taken away from them, now, or at some indefinite point of time in the future. When it is taken away, they are to depend solely upon what the Minister of Transport says is to be the appropriate compensation. The Minister of Transport is a very likeable chap, and of his deputy


I am extremely fond, but who knows who will be there in five or ten years hence? In fact, this will not be a Ministerial decision when it comes to be taken; it will be a Whitehall decision ratified by the Minister. What it really amounts to is that we are saying to various categories of property owners, including the category here dealt with, that their fate is to rest on the ipse dixit, at a time perhaps ten years hence, of some doubtless worthy official sitting in the Ministry of Transport in Whitehall.

Mr. Ernest Davies: But subject to Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Yes, subject to Parliamentary procedure. But anybody who has experience of "praying" in this House, even against Orders where provision is made. for praying, will have good cause to doubt the efficiency of prayer. When I am told that the decision of the officer in the Ministry of Transport in Whitehall will be subject to the control of this House I would, if I were not anxious to keep in Order, laugh gutturally. Does anyone imagine that it is a practical proposition, even under ordinary conditions where we have not a mass of new legislation, to keep track of a million and one decisions given in Whitehall day by day? And under present conditions, where legislation is being loaded on us at a pace unprecedented in peacetime history in Britain, the idea that we can control the compensation given by the officer in Whitehall is altogether beside the point.
I want to make the point again, which I tried to make inadequately on an earlier Amendment, because it operates here too. The principle universally observed throughout my lifetime, until recently, was that when the State took over property, it applied the same broad principle to all decisions. There were not a series of arbitrary decisions, a Stock Exchange rate in one case, a global sum in another, and an arbitrary decision by a Minister in yet another. There was a principle related to all cases. Secondly, the principle should be "a fair price" for what we took, because you have no right to damnify one class of property holders—and here it is not the case that all property holders are on this side of the House—by comparison with another. 1f you want to do that, do it in the

straightforward way in the Budget. The third principle is that it was wrong that either the individual or the State should be judge and jury in its own cause.
I regard everyone of these principles as having been violated by this Clause. There is no principle laid down, there is no right of appeal, and there is not even a time-limit fixed. Everything is uncertain and arbitrary, which, under any Government, is a thing which can ultimately lead to a breakdown in the constitution. It may be that this is not an epoch-making Measure of cosmic significance, but when the Nazi regime first came into power in Germany it was not of cosmic significance that they sacked civil servants, judges and teachers. But it presaged in a very short time the complete subordination of law, justice and equity to the interest of the Nazi rulers.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know where the hon. Member has got to now. but he has not yet got to the Amendment.

Mr. Brown: It is perhaps unfortunate that I experience so much difficulty in making myself clear. I am suggesting, with infinite respect, that we had better stop this kind of arbitrary treatment in its early stages, because if it is not stopped, it has the habit of being taken a great deal further. The illustration I gave was not an impertinent one. The dismissal of those civil servants, judges and teachers in Germany led to the complete subordination of truth, justice and knowledge. Finally, it led to the establishment of the rule of the concentration camp and the firing squad. Therefore, this is not an unimportant matter. And in so far as this Amendment goes somewhere towards relieving the uncertainty, and lays down something which is definite, I refer it to the Clause as it stands.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): The Committee should realise that we have a different proposition here from the propositions in the other parts of the Bill where we are taking over the railways and road haulage firms. In the case of long distance road haulage firms, we are taking them over in a specified way and within a reasonably short time. The railways are being taken over on a specific date and in a specific way. We know exactly what we are going to do in


these cases and when we are going to do it, but when we come to the problem of these area road schemes, we are in an entirely different field. As the Committee know, we have considered it wise, in this very difficult matter of road passenger services, not to lay down precisely the type of organisation which is to take over the services, or to lay down the structure of the organisations, the area which they shall serve, or when they are to be established. All we say is that we are convinced that a great benefit to the public can be brought about by a co-ordination of the existing road passenger services, for reasons which have been explained many times, which, I should have thought, were obvious, particularly to those in rural areas where present arrangements are exceedingly bad and contrary to the public interest. We are convinced that a reorganisation and co-ordination is desirable in the public interest.
We say that before these schemes are put into operation, they should be given careful consideration by the Commission, who will have the duty imposed on them to draw up the areas and the schemes, which may vary as between one part of the country and another, and to advise the Minister, who will then put the schemes before Parliament. We are faced with this situation when we consider what compensation should be paid to the bus companies likely to be taken over under these schemes and put under some form of public ownership; we do not know what form of public ownership the Commission will recommend. We are also faced with this difficulty. There is an enormous variety of types of bus concerns. There is the huge combine, such as Tillings, to which reference has been made, an entirely different proposition from the small man who runs one bus to a local market town twice a week. There is a far greater range of undertakings than in the road haulage business.
The next difficulty is that we do not know exactly what the manner of transfer will be, and what the structure of the new organisation is likely to be. We do not know the services which are to come over completely or in part, and we cannot tell until the schemes have been worked out by the Commission, and have been considered by the Minister and put before Parliament. Even more difficult, we do not know when these transfers are likely to be put into operation. Some hon.

Members have suggested that it may not be for five years. I hope that it will be long before then, but it may be that in some parts of the country it will be five years before these new organisations can be set up. It is exceedingly difficult to say now what are fair terms of compensation for bus companies which may be taken over in five years' time, or even later. There may be different types of buses on the roads at that time. Buses may even be driven by rockets instead of by petrol, and if the rate of depreciation was laid down now, it might be wholly inappropriate in five years' time.
In view of these difficulties, the Committee will appreciate that we felt it inadvisable to put into the Bill the precise basis of compensation. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), in his very clear speech on a very difficult subject, suggested that depreciation should be 15 per cent. yearly and that the annual profit should be multiplied by eight to establish the value of goodwill. Even if this is correct at the moment, is it likely to be correct in five years' time, and can it be applied to the whole range of bus undertakings in the country? We are convinced that it would not he wise for the State or for the companies concerned to insert any table of compensation at this stage. We have given this matter careful consideration over a long period, because we realise the difficulties and the desirability of writing in some firm principles of compensation to avoid uncertainty. But I firmly disagree with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), that in order to keep some certainty in this matter we should write into the Bill a Schedule of some sort, whether it be good or bad —

6.30 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why he cannot put into the Bill a provision for compensation at a fair market price, and, in the event of a dispute, let it be referred to arbitration?

Mr. Strauss: In matters of this sort, where a State authority is taking over a whole range of private undertakings, it is more satisfactory for Parliament to settle the basis of compensation. It may be that where there is a dispute it can go to arbitration, but I think it would be unwise to say that matters connected with


compensation of this sort should go, without any direction whatever by Parliament, to arbitration. As I say, we are not in a position to recommend to the Committee or Parliament any basis of compensation which seems to us likely to meet all cases in three to five years' time. We have been in consultation with the industry on this matter—because we would like to arrive at a basis if we could find one which we could recommend as being fair—but we have not yet been able to do so.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be desirable, if possible, to put a scheme into the Bill. The industry represented—I believe, unanimously— proposed such a scheme. If that is desirable, why could not that scheme be included?

Mr. Strauss: There are differences of opinion in the industry and, moreover, certain of the proposals which were put forward are not such as we could advise the Committee to accept, as we do not think they are reasonable. However, our discussions are continuing with the industry, and it may be that we can arrive at conclusions which we can advise Parliament, at a later stage, to accept, although I must warn the Committee that at the moment they seem rather far away. Unless we can be convinced that we can recommend a basis of settlement which will stand the test of time, and the varying conditions which affect the industry, we believe that it is far better to leave the matter where it is, deliberately vague, and say that when these undertakings are taken over the Minister must base the compensation to be paid to them either on the proposals in Part II or Part III or, where those provisions are not appropriate, must devise and recommend such other compensation proposals as appear to him to be appropriate.
This does not mean an ipse dixit of the Minister, which must be accepted. His compensation proposals will be scrutinised by Parliament, not just by means of a Prayer, after a long day's Sitting, but by special Parliamentary procedure whereby anyone who feels aggrieved by anything which the Minister or the Government are doing can have his case represented by counsel. There is special procedure which will take account of any grievances which

any person or body may have against action by the Minister. In these circumstances, I recommend the Committee to leave the matter where it stands.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I have listened with the utmost care to what the hon. Gentleman has just said and, strangely enough, I find myself, for the first time, in agreement with 5o per cent. of what he said. When he said that the Government knew what they were going to do with the railway and road haulage services which they were taking over, I found myself in disagreement with him, but when he said that the Government did not know what they were going to do about the bus services they were taking over I found myself in agreement. When the hon. Gentleman went on to formulate his general provisions for dealing with this matter, he reminded me of the poet who, if I may mix up his words a bit, said: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be fair." Still less did I find myself in agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said then. To justify a complete absence of any terms of compensation for the taking over of buses, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that this is a scheme which should not have been introduced, that it has not been considered to a point where it is fit to be placed before any legislative assembly, that the Government have not the slightest idea of how the scheme will be worked out and what will happen to the people who may be affected.
Some may say that that is just what to expect from this Government, but I ask them to think of the people who will be affected. How will they run their businesses during the next three to five years? If the Government have not the vaguest idea of the compensation these people will get, how will those concerned buy new buses and operate the services which will be of such importance to the country in the next few years? That is the position with which we are faced. The Parliamentary Secretary made an ad misericordiam appeal for time. It is appalling that, at this stage, he should put that forward as the only defence which the Government can make to our criticisms. Let us see whether the hon. Gentleman is entitled to time. What he is putting forward in the Schedule as it stands is that the Minister should be given a blank


cheque in the case of paragraphs i (a) and (b), a rather dirty piece of paper in respect of paragraph I (c), and should then be able to take his own measures. I would point out with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) that before today the Minister and those advising him apparently came to the decision that they thought the Minister could give compensation identical, as near as may be, to transfers of railway companies under paragraph (a), and of road haulage organisations under paragraph (b). When they go to the extent that compensation is to be, as near as may be, similar to that given for railway undertakings or road undertakings, what can be the objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), to saying, "Either it is the market price or some other combined basis as given in other regards, or, if you cannot get agreement, we shall have an arbitration before an impartial tribunal "?
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the basis of compensation should be settled by Parliament. That is what we are pressing for in this Amendment. We say that it is a complete abrogation of any legislative powers that this House formerly had not to attempt to put any proposals of compensation into a Bill, but to leave them to a Minister. The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) batting strongly at Nos. 7, 8 or 9, as always, on every Government proposal, went in by way of interjection with the suggestion of special Parliamentary procedure, and the Parliamentary Secretary, clutching acrobatically at any straw that came his way, seized on that, and put it forward as a justification. Let us examine that. It is interesting when one mentions special Parliamentary procedure to see what it means. Take paragraph (c) which provides
… in the opinion of the Minister proper compensation …
The Minister puts forward proposals for compensation, and they come into this House under the scheme that is suggested. One of two things can happen: Either there is a Petition of general objection or a Petition of amendment. If there is a Petition of amendment it goes automatically to a Joint Committee of both Houses. If there is not a Petition of amendment, it can be decided under exactly the procedure about which the hon. Member for Rugby has spoken, on the Floor of the House. That was the whole basis of the

Parliamentary Special Procedure Act, which it was hoped and still is hoped the Minister will not abuse, that in a case where it can be decided on the Floor of the House without any forensic procedure at all —

Mr. Ernest Davies: If there were objections to these schemes surely amendments would be put forward.

6.45 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, if he will look through Parliamentary history—and there is some reason why I should have the matter fairly clearly in mind—he will find that the position is that one can either have a Petition of amendment that is put forward by some outside body, in which case the matter goes automatically to a Joint Committee of both Houses, or one can have a Petition of general objection, and, in that case, it can be raised on exactly the same procedure as a Prayer. On that Prayer, and on what is known as a negative resolution, the House has the choice before it of either passing it, negativing it, or sending it to a Committee. It is only if the Minister, who ex hypothesi has the Government majority behind him, agrees that it goes to a Committee.
I will assume, in deference to my desire to give the hon. Member for Enfield the best of all possible worlds, that there is a Petition for amendment, and it goes to a Committee of both Houses. Does he really think that a forensic inquiry in front of a select committee of both Houses is a satisfactory method of legislating on a great question of compensation for people whose property is compulsorily acquired, without this House laying down any principle? That is what it comes to. I yield to no man in my admiration for forensic inquiries in their proper place— I have every reason to believe in them— but I do not believe in forensic inquiries as a method of laying down policy, and that is all that the Parliamentary special procedure comes to. So we are left in this extraordinary position. The Parliamentary Secretary, has gone as near, it may be, as any conscientious Minister ever could with this Part of the Bill, which is absolutely inchoate and unready for consideration. That is what his defence amounted to. That is a defence for his being totally unable to put any compensation proposals before the Committee. His other line is, "Give us time." Without


making any cheap jokes in that regard, I suggest to my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends behind me that we cannot really allow matters to dither on in this way, If no concrete proposals are put forward, then I suggest to my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends that it is our duty to vote in favour of this Amendment and to do so now.

Mr. Digby: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the Eighth Schedule has been left deliberately vague. I think that it would be not unjust to apply those words to certain other parts of the Bill. If anything has stood out in the discussion which we have had, it has been the vagueness of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary as to the exact working of this Bill. It may be all very well for them, as my right hon. Friend has said, to leave a very large degree of uncertainty in this matter, because they have not made up their minds about it, but it is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory state of affairs for an extremely important industry the passenger road transport industry, which affects the constituencies of a great many of us. These operators have been, as it were, condemned to death. They do not know how the sentence will be carried out, nor when it will be carried out; all they know is that it will be carried out at some time. Quite recently, the House expressed strong views on that kind of thing. I think in this case too it is quite wrong of the Parliamentary Secretary not to say a word about the point of view of the industry. He did not appear to be interested in the way that the industry is carried on in the meanwhile. One thing is certain, that the provisions of this Schedule as to compensation, as it stands, are extraordinarily vague, as he himself has admitted, and the object of these four Amendments is to put some degree of certainty into the provisions for compensation. There is no doubt at all that this branch of the transport industry is totally different from the other industries dealt with in the Bill, and if compensation is to be paid, as proposed in this Schedule, there are bound to be many anomalies. The question of the length of life of vehicles has already been referred to. Certain road haulage vehicles have a remarkably long life, up to 250,000 miles and yet passenger vehicles have a much longer life than that. There are other spheres,

of course, in which there is a marked difference, but there is perhaps less fluctuation in this part of the industry than there is in the road haulage industry.
When we were discussing railway Amendments the Minister was at pains to show the danger to the railways from road competition, and when we came to road transport he talked about competition from the railways. He has recently discovered a derelict canal, and no doubt he will be able to make play with the difficulties of the passenger road transport industry. Nevertheless, there is no doubt whatever that this is an extraordinarily stable industry at the present time, and he is, by leaving this Schedule so very vague and refusing to accept these Amendments, leaving an element of uncertainty in it, which is bound to react unfavourably on the public, however convenient it may be for his Ministry.

Mr. Maclay: There is one point which I would like to carry a little further which was dealt with so admirably by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). It is the question of special Parliamentary procedure and how much protection that really does afford in these circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that in certain circumstances the objections and Amendments can reach the Joint Committee, and he would be a foolish person who would decry the value of that procedure. I really think, however, that hon. Members opposite, who all through this Bill have tended to be soothed by the special procedure, should know that if the Joint Committee of both Houses report with Amendments back to this House and make recommendations in regard to the objections which they hold were valid, the Government of the day can ignore that report altogether. We start the procedure in a rather curious form. The original order is put in the Bill at the Report stage, and the Government use their majority to get it through. That is regardless of the fact that the Joint Committee of both Houses set up under this special procedure may have Amendments to recommend in the light of the objections that they have heard. I think it is important to understand that while one does not decry special Parliamentary procedure in certain circumstances, and it can be a great protection, it is not necessarily a protection in a case like this where there might be an


objection to the compensation Clauses. I want to emphasise that because it is not generally understood.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I was a little surprised by what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I find my hon. Friends who were on the Committee upstairs were rather less surprised, because it is curious to see someone rising from the Treasury Bench and saying he does not know what he is going to do or how he is going to do it but on the whole whatever he does or does not do, it will be a good thing. Fundamentally that was his plan. Then in order to get out of his embarrassment the Parliamentary Secretary made a ridiculous suggestion that atom propelled or rocket propelled buses might be going down the streets of our villages in three years' time. That is what one would expect from the hon. Gentleman the Sage of King's Norton rather than from His Majesty's Ministers. I think the hon. Gentleman's attempt to confuse the issue was both unworthy and unsuccessful, because, after all, by whatever the buses are propelled, whether it be by atomic energy or rockets, it does not alter the principle. It is wrong in a Bill of this kind to leave vital decisions entirely in Minister's hands. That is all we are objecting to.
That type of confusion does not help and I think the bus companies would do well to be careful. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was saying just now that there is no principle of compensation in this Bill. It is true that compensation in this Bill is different for different types of things. It is also true that no principle has been expressed. But there is a sort of principle behind these schemes of compensation and it has often been impressed on us by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies). It is a determination that things will be taken over at such a price that the Government monopoly will not appear to be doing too badly however badly it is run in fact. No doubt, in about three years' time we shall be beginning to see the main difficulties in this industry, as we are beginning to see them in coal mining. Already the Minister of Fuel and Power has given way to blackmail with the usual consequences. In this transport monopoly we will see rising costs, and rising fares. Therefore, the pressure to under-capitalise anything taken over will

grow steadily greater. That is the principle upon which this Bill is being worked, and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend and all Members of good will in this House will vote for these Amendments.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: There is one point which has not been raised in this discussion, but which I think it is relevant to bring forward, arid in doing so I have to refer to another Clause in the Bill. I want to refer to Clause 2 under which the Minister will have power to take over bus companies before Part IV of the Bill comes into opera-tion. If that is the case it is perfectly clear that Part IV of the Bill will take a certain amount of time to be brought into operation but not so the power under Clause 2. The Minister immediately after the passing of the Bill can take over any bus company in any part of England at almost a moment's notice. On what basis of compensation is that going to be done? Is it going to be done on an ad hoc basis, or are we to be told before that date what is the basis of compensation, and if we are to be told, are we to have an opportunity of discussing it, or is it going to be done by an Order in Council emanating from the Minister?
I suggest that there is one other aspect, too, and that is that there may be some bus companies who will not be taken over under Clause 2 of this Bill though I believe that some of those companies are going to be subject to unfair competition. There will be cut prices, because the Commission are to be exempt from the deterrent of the Road Traffic Act, and can, therefore, make any fares operate which they like. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head, but if he looks at the Bill he will find that that is so. The Commission have powers to raise or lower fares. They will be able to operate at any rate they like, and by so doing they may be able to under cut companies which have not yet been taken over. Then when the compensation is decided upon, these other companies will have been running at a loss for a certain period and their case will be very weak when it comes to claiming compensation.
7.0 p.m.
I suggest that that is a point which shows how grossly unfair it is for the Minister to do what he is doing in this


case. It also shows that the Government are in far too great a hurry. They have not given sufficient thought to this. This is a rushed Measure and a rushed Clause and, as he said himself, the Parliamentary Secretary has absolutely no idea as yet what are to be the compensation terms. That is an extraordinary admission from a Member of the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Gallacher: I was stimulated by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) to say a word of wisdom. He made a remark to the effect that the Minister did not know what he wanted and did not know how he was going to do it. Hon. Members opposite may know what they want. We know what they want and we have the very big advantage that we know that they are not going to get it. Therefore, we might as well have a Division and finish with this matter.

Mr. McKie: I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was going to be so brief. Perhaps a Member from a rural constituency in Scotland, which differs completely from that represented by the hon. Gentleman, might be allowed to say a few words. Road transport services bulk larger in rural Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I was very disappointed indeed at the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary replied to this Amendment. It was obvious from the discomfort which the hon. Gentleman exhibited that he was deeply seized of the importance of our case but, as has been said already, the Government of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member are in such a hurry to proceed with this legislation, as indeed they are with all other major Measures that they have brought before us, that there has been no time for ample consideration of this point.
A good deal has been said about Messers. Thomas Tilling. I am not specially concerned with the big combines such as that, though, of course, in my constituency, the Caledonian Omnibus Company is operating. I am thinking in particular of the small men, the men who have one or two buses, to use the Parliamentary Secretary's own words. I am thinking also of the man who, with his sons, may be operating anything from one to two dozen

buses. It is those people who are placed in a position of anxiety and uncertainty by the obdurate refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this Amendment. Why could he not, especially so far as the small men were concerned, have turned a sympathetic ear to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that we should have either the taking over at market values or arbitration? "No," the Parliamentary Secretary says, "we have had conversations." Of course, I suppose that that meant conversations with the big combines. He did not tell us whether it was with the representatives of the small people as well. He was not able to tell us what was the result of these conversations. I suppose it was not opportune because those responsible for running the road transport services all over the country had not been able to impress the right hon. Gentleman with the strength of their case.
The hon. Gentleman was so anxious to get on with Socialism in our time that he ruthlessly turned down the proposals of these combines and of all people interested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that he did consult with the smaller men. I was very disappointed indeed to hear those cynical cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite when I said that it was more important for the Parliamentary Secretary to get on with Socialistic legislation than to listen to objections. Another hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," and he therefore agrees that it is more important to bring in the Socialist State than to listen to reasonable objections. Would the Minister in his own dealings, if he was taking over something from industry or agriculture, expect for one moment that the other party would agree to keep everything in a state of suspense possibly for three, four or even five years? That is the position of these people. They are in a state of complete uncertainty because they have a certain knowledge that they are to be taken over. They are kept in this purgatory because the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have been unable to agree to any proposal which will be found reasonably sympathetic to the bus owners. I shall certainly, with great pleasure, divide on this matter.

Mr. Assheton: By far the most disturbing speech to which this Committee has been treated in the course of these long


proceedings was the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary. His speech was appallingly frank and showed the utter irresponsibility of the Government in this matter. The Government have such wholly different ideas of what is common honesty that I despair of moving them on the compensation issue and I do not propose to waste any time in trying. However, there is a matter of commonsense as well as common honesty. I urge the Minister to say a few words on that subject. It is commonsense, I suggest, that if we are to ask the bus companies to carry on for an indefinite time, we should give some indication of the sort of compensation which they will have when they come to be taken over. How is it possible for any business to continue working for an indefinite number of years in such conditions? I suggest that the proposals of the Government are the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. Renton: As I moved this Amendment and as I have listened carefully to the whole of the arguments put forward from both sides of the Committee, it might be to the convenience of the Minister—and I hope the Committee will approve—if I attempt to summarise the position as it now appears. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the main reason why he cannot accept this group of Amendments is that in the opinion of the Government it is too difficult now to predict what the circumstances will be in a few years' time when these passenger transport businesses come to be taken over. He, therefore, says, "Let us leave it to the free discussion of the Minister and have as a safeguard the special Parliamentary procedure." We say that the special Parliamentary procedure is not a suitable safeguard. To the arguments that have already been advanced, I should like to add that the special Parliamentary procedure was never intended to be in lieu of a compensation tribunal. It would be an intolerable abuse of the

purpose and functions of a Parliament within a Parliamentary democracy if the Members of the Lower House were asked to consider in detail a long series of cases. We do not know how many different businesses would be involved. It might be as many as 500, each of which would have compensation proposals.

True, it would be possible if a very great deal of trouble was taken by each of the businesses concerned to deal with the matter in this way, but we say that that is not what Parliament is for. As the Government found it too difficult to think out a more suitable alternative, we have, in addition to being constructive in our criticism, put forward a constructive proposal which we are advised by the representatives of the industry will meet the case. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary says, my information is that the industry is almost unanimous in saving that something along these lines is what is needed and would work and would cover the whole of the 10 years period which we may have to envisage. We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary, "No, the whole thing is too difficult." When the great London Passenger Transport Act was put forward nobody then suggested that the whole thing was too difficult. Various principles were laid down by Parliament as to the form of compensation. The scheme was a vast one, much bigger than any single scheme under this Bill is likely to be. The compensation tribunal sat for a number of years and eventually completed its job, I believe to the satisfaction of everyone. But the Government say, "No, this is too difficult. We will leave it to the Minister and the special Parliamentary procedure." That is not good enough in our opinion, and I ask my right: hon. and hon. Friends to divide with me on the first Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 314.

Division No. 154.]
AYES.
[7.12 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Birch, Nigel
Butler, Rt. Hon. R A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Boothby, R.
Byers, Frank


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Bowen, R.
Clarke, Col. R. S


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G


Astor, Hon. M.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Cole, T. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barlow, Sir J.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C


Beechman, N. A.
Bullock, Capt. M
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Butcher. H. W.
Crowder, Capt. John E




Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


De la Bère, R.
Linstead, H. N
Reberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Digby, S. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirrat)
Ropner, Col. L.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Scott, Lord W.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Shephard, S (Newark)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maclay, Han. J. S.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir W.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gage, C
Marsden, Capt. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Strauss, H. C. (English Universities)


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Medlicott, F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mellor, Sir J.
Studholme, H. G.


Glyn, Sir R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morris, Hockin (Carmarthen)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Teeling, Willlam


Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E,
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Naughton, S. G.
Nicholson, G.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hinderson, John (Cathcart)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Touche, G. C.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Nutting, Anthony
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Wadsworth, G.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Walker-Smith, D.


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. [...]
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Hurd, A
Pickthorn, K.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pitman, I. J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Kendall, W. D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Rayner, Brig. R.
York, C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)



Langford-Holt, J.
Renton, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Chater, D.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cobb, F. A.
Follick, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cocks, F. S.
Foot, M. M.


Alpass, J. H.
Coldrick, W.
Forman, J. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Collick, P.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Attewell, H. C.
Collindridge, F.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Austin, H. Lewis
Collins, V. J
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Bacon, Miss A
Colman, Miss G. M
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Baird. J
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Balfour, A
Cock, T. F.
Gallacher, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Barstow, P. G.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gibbins, J.


Barton, C
Corvedale, Viscount
Gilzean, A.


Battley, J. R.
Cove, W. G.
Gooch, E. G.


Bechervaise, A. E
Crawley, A.
Goodrich, H. E.


Belcher, J. W.
Grossman, R. H. S
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Benson, G.
Daines, P
Grenfell, D. R.


Beswick, F.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Grey, C. F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grierson, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Binns, J.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Blackburn, A. R
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Blenkinsop, A.
Deer, G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden 


Blyton, W R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gunter, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Guy, W. H.


Bottomley, A. G
Diamond, J
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Dobbie, W.
Hale, Leslie


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, W. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bramall, E. A.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hardman, D. R


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dye, S.
Hardy, E. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Harrison, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edelman, M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hobson, C. R.


Burden, T W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Holman, P.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
House, G.


Callaghan, James
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Ewart, R.
Hubbard, T.


Chamberlain, R. A
Fairhurst, F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Champion, A. J
Farthing, W. J
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)







Hughes, H. D. (Wolverh'pton, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Mort, D. L.
Stubbs, A. E.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Murray, J. D.
Swingler, S.


Irving, W. J.
Nally, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Janner, B.
Naylor, T. E.
Symonds, A. L.


Jay, D. P. T.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


John, W
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
O'Brien, T.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Keenan, W
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, E.


Kenyon, C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Tiffany, S.


Key, C. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Timmons, J.


King, E. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Titterington, M. F.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Parkin, B. T.

Tolley, L.


Kinley, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lang, G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lavers, S.
Pearson, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pearl, Capt T. F.
Usborne, Henry


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Leonard, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Viant, S. P.


Leslie, J. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Walkden, E


Levy, B. W.
Price, M. Philips
Walker, G. H.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Proctor, W. T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Warbey, W. N


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Randall, H. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Logan, D. G.
Ranger, J.
Watson, W. M.


Longden, F.
Rankin, J
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Lyne, A. W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


McAdam, W.
Richards, R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)



McAllister, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


McEntee, V. La T.
Robens, A.
West, D. G.


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.M.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McKinlay, A. S.
Royle, C.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


McLeavy, F.
Scollan, T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wilkes, L.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sharp, Granville
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Shurmer, P.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Marquand, H. A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Mathers, G.
Simmons, C. J
Williamson, T.


Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M
Willis, E.


Medland, H. M.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Messer, F.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wise, Major F. J


Middleton, Mrs. L
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, A


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wyatt, W.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Solley, L. J.
Yates, V. F.


Mitchison, G. R.
Sorensen, R. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Montague, F.
Stamford, W.



Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morley, R.
Stephen, C.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield C.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. Popplewell.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Meaning of "Average net annual profit" in relation to road transport under- takings.)

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 133, line 28, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where, by virtue of a Road Haulage Organisation control agreement the whole or any part of an undertaking was under the control of -the Minister during any part of the year, nineteen hundred and forty-six, such undertaking may elect to bring into average any three financial years falling wholly within the period between the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and the date on which the undertaking vests in the Commission.

We now come to the Ninth Schedule which, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will be aware, is another of these undiscussed matters which now come before hon. and right hon. Members for the first time. The Committee will, therefore, bear with me if I put the short points which I suggest would make for equity with regard to the compensation for road hauliers. It might be convenient, Sir Charles, if we discussed the point raised by this Amendment with the next Amendment—in line 35, at the end, to insert:
Provided that, if the transferor so elects, the three financial years shall be adjusted on a day to day basis, so that the trading profit


immediately before the date of transfer shall be brought into average.
—as they are cognate matters. The first point I have to put to the Committee concerns the selection of the years on which the average net profits will be based, and the suggestion in my Amendment is that the undertaking may elect to bring into average any three financial years falling wholly within the period 1st January, 1938, and the date on which the undertaking vests in the Commission. At the present moment there is, as I see it, a real difficulty with regard to undertakings which were controlled previously by the Ministry of War Transport through the wartime Road Haulage Organisation. The last three financial years suggested in the Schedule will include part of the control period and, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will appreciate, the profits of the control period were themselves based on the average profit of two years falling wholly between 1st January, 1935, and 31st March, 1939. Therefore, on this basis, if one takes into account the period of control, one is really going back some 15 years in order to get any of the years that are relevant—that is, if I have the scheme correctly; once you take the control years, then you are thrown back automatically to the years between 1935 and 1939.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal is not an unreasonable one, that one should allow an election of any of the three years which fall between 1938 and the time of acquisition. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have already made clear—I am afraid, emphatically clear—our views as to the adequacy of this compensation; that we think the multiplier which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward in his Bill is wrong. We have argued that point and been defeated on it but, after all, this is a comparatively small suggestion of alleviation, that the years which are suggested shall be at the election of the person who is to be expropriated and shall fall within a period between 1938 and the period of acquisition. I do not want to reiterate points made already, but I should remind the Committee of the fact, which is undeniable, that those people with whom we are dealing here are to lose their business and their livelihood. That, we are all agreed upon and, therefore, this is a very minor second line of alleviation

which we are suggesting, and I put it forward in that way, without any elaboration, as a suggestion which would go some way—nothing like the whole way—to let these people feel that they are having their own points of view fairly considered.
The second point which I have suggested, that we might discuss, is an even smaller point, but again it helps. I am suggesting that it ought to be possible to go on a day-to-day basis. The first suggestion in the Schedule—again I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will check me if I have it wrong, but I do not think I have—is that one should be conditioned by the accounting period on which the business has been running up to now; that is, if the accounting period ends on a certain day, that will mark the one terminus of the period of three years which they can choose. I suggest that that should be allowed to go on from day to day so that if, for example, it is a business whose accounting period ends on 31st March and it is taken over on 1st February, if it is on a rising line of business—that is, if its profits are improving—the owner should have the right to elect and say, "I will take it on a day-to-day basis up to the day when I am acquired." I am quite frank with the Committee; I am asking for the selection so that, if it were the other way, he could make a different selection of the years. I am saying frankly that, in view of the position in which the road hauliers find themselves, they should be given such minor improvements of their position as will not seriously or largely affect the amount of compensation, but will at any rate free them from the feeling that they have not only had the major difficulty of losing their business, but they have also been subjected to minor injustices. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee to join me in removing these minor injustices, which will be removed if the two methods of election which suggest are adopted. I do not think is a point which I need elaborate, or detain the Committee about for any long time. I ask that whatever their political views, they should view this with clear vision and without any previous antipathies, this light improvement in the road haulier's position.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made suggestions for altering the compensation for road


hauliers—in one case making a rather substantial alteration from the proposal in the Bill, and, in the second place, a smaller alteration. Neither alteration is reasonable. The first Amendment suggests that the road haulier, instead of being taken over on the basis of the three years prior of transfer, should have the option of taking any three years he likes since 1st January, 1938, as the basis for the calculation of goodwill. Such an option is not really reasonable. I have never heard of any transaction where one party is given an option of picking out the three best years from 10 years as the basis of calculation of the price of transfer. It is not reasonable to give the haulier such an option. Three years prior to transfer is the proper basis on which the calculation should be made.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am only asking
that where, by virtue of a Road Haulage Organisation control agreement the whole or any part of an undertaking was under the control of the Minister during any part of the year,
Such undertaking may elect to bring in these years. It is limited.

Mr. Strauss: I agree, but even so, it would be very hard to justify the proposition that a haulier should have the option of picking out the best three years in the last 10 years, and I cannot ask the Committee to accept the suggestion.
The second proposal is that where it is in the interests of the road haulier, the basis should not be on the ordinary accounting period when the books of the haulier are made up, but that the accounts should be made up on a day to day basis, and for this purpose, ending on the day prior to the transfer. There are strong practical reasons for not accepting that proposal. If the accounts acre made up from year to year, we know where we are. Usually the date is 31st December, and sometimes 5th April, but if the haulier thinks in the middle of the year that it might be to his advantage, as he has done rather better in the first half of that year than previously, to have his accounts made up to 1st June, and a new set of accounts made up, it would be of great inconvenience to everyone concerned, and there might be delay. If the accounts are to be made up at a later date, when the transferor thinks it to his advantage, there

should in fairness be an alteration in the opposite direction. The proposal can he of little benefit to the road haulier, but it would be of great inconvenience to make up special sets of accounts on a special day prior to the transfer. A great deal of unnecessary work would be involved. From the practical point of view it is asking for something which is unreasonable, and which would be of small advantage to the haulier. I much regret that we cannot accept either of the Amendments.

Mr. Hollis: I think the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will have overlooked two points. It is true that there is something not normal in taking the three preceding years,, but those years are put in for special reasons. The current year is likely to be an extremely disadvantageous one, because, owing to the recent fuel shortage, firms have been prevented from extending their business as they would have extended in normal times, and their profits are likely to be abnormally small, whereas the two preceding years were not real years at all from the point of view of the working companies, as the profit was calculated by what happened not in those years, but in the 15 years before. That in itself makes the calculation extremely unreal, and also unfair. because there has been a very large change in the value of money between that distant day and the present time. These unfortunate people are going to be compensated for profits they made at a time when the had an entirely different purchasing power. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to consider the Amendments, and to see if he cannot meet this injustice, by accepting one or other, or, better still, accepting both.

Mr. Renton: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was very largely based on his belief that it was unreasonable that the transferor should be given some choice in the matter. Not only is it not unreasonable, but there is nothing original or new in the idea of giving people choice in such matters. In regard to Income Tax and E.P.T., Parliament has frequently provided that people shall be able to choose the period that is to their benefit. This matter has been very justly administered by the Income Tax authorities in order to meet the exceptional cases where


people might have had a little bad luck. Some flexibility has been introduced.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: But can the hon. Member suggest to me any comparable circumstances where an option has been given to choose any three years out of ten years?

Mr. Renton: It was not far off that when people were invited to choose standard years for E.P.T., at the beginning of the war. I do not know if any hon. Member can give the Parliamentary Secretary a more specific assurance than I can, merely from memory, but my memory was that one was allowed to choose any two years out of five somewhere between 1936 and 1941.

Mr. Alfred Edwards: It was 1935, 1936 and 1937.

Mr. Renton: There is great flexibility when one is allowed, as a business or professional man, to choose the end of one's financial year. I know that the Solicitor-General will bear me out when I say that it is of great advantage to barristers of fluctuating income, especially in their early years, to be able to choose, for Income Tax purposes, the average of their three earliest and worst years. Then, at a later date when the average period has come to an end, they are able to say exactly at what date in each year they would like their financial year to begin. I suggest that there is in substance as great a choice already given there as that for which the right hon. rand learned Gentleman was asking. There is nothing

original in the Amendment, but only a repetition, applied to particular circumstances, of a principle which has already been accepted and which is frequently applied.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman may have some good argument in respect of E.P.T., but with regard to Income Tax he certainly has no good argument at all. In the case of Income Tax it was possible to get out an average over the last three years in the case of an estate, where one did not come in under the one-sixth statutory allowance but wished to estimate the cost of the estate over a period. In that case one is given no choice at all but has to take the last previous three years. That is reasonable. If we allowed a principle of picking and choosing in order that we might estimate our liability for Income Tax I do not know where we should get to.

The Temporary-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): We should probably get out of Order.

Mr. Price: Yes, Sir Charles. I only wished to point out that the principle which applies in the case I have cited should apply here too. One cannot pick and choose there, so one should not be allowed to pick and choose in this case either, in a matter of assessment of compensation.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 126; Noes, 308.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 134, line 11, to leave out "nil," and to insert:
a sum representing one-tenth of the value of the vehicles acquired by the Commission calculated in accordance with Subsection (1) of Section forty-eight of this Act, with the addition of a sum representing one twentieth of the value of other relevant property acquired by the Commission calculated in accordance with Subsection (2) or Section forty-eight of this Act and the aggregate of such sums shall be deemed to be the annual net profit of the undertaking.
With your permission, Sir Charles, I will discuss together this Amendment and the following two Amendments, in page 134, lines 23 and 27, which are consequential. Hon. Members will find that paragraph 5 of the Ninth Schedule reads:
The amount of the profits made in the said three years ascertained and adjusted as aforesaid, shall then be aggregated, and the amount of the losses made in the said three years, ascertained and adjusted as aforesaid, shall also be aggregated.
If there are no profits to be aggregated, or the aggregate of the profits does not exceed the aggregate of the losses, the average net annual profit shall be taken to be nil.
That is the position which I commend to the consideration of the Committee. One may well have a business where on that formula, the average of the net annual

profit shall be taken to be nil because one is in the preparatory stages of the business, and as every hon. Member knows, in the preparatory stages of building up a business, one not only often has, but one expects, a period of loss. One has seen that constantly in the most admirable businesses which have turned out to be very successful. In the preparatory period one inevitably has to undertake expenses which make the possibility or the probability of a profit very small indeed. What we have heard so often during the past two days, especially when we were considering the question of railway compensation, has been that we must not look at the past, because in that case we would have a figure of earnings and of dividends paid far in excess of what was suggested in the compensation. The argument we have heard from the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) and the Minister is that we must remember what are the prospects of the future and what is the chance of a net maintainable revenue for future years. I suggest that by and large, when you get a period in which there has been a loss over the three years which you are choosing, you will in many cases see that the loss is preparatory to building up a better business in the future.
Strictly, I agree at once that you ought in those circumstances to look forward and see what are your future possibilities, and if you are going to give anything, it ought to be based on future possibilities. I concede that at once. I think the Minister realises that I would not argue anything different. But, of course, as he has said, there are great difficulties in arriving at the accounts of the actual position and of estimates for the future, and in these matters one has sometimes to take a rough and ready rule simply because the labour of trying to arrive at a method on a logical basis would be too great. What I suggest, as a purely rough and ready rule in order to meet the circumstances which I have put before the Committee, is that one should add to the compensation for the vehicles 10 per cent. of the value of the vehicles and 5 per cent. of the value of any other property simply as an arbitrary figure to cover the cases I have put, and which, I suggest, will be the large majority of cases, where people have a prospect of future earnings, although they cannot base that prospect of future earnings on past results. Again, I put it forward to the Committee simply as an abbreviation. I remind the Committee in the fewest possible words that these people are losing personal businesses. It is not a question of merely losing an investment, but of losing a livelihood, and I therefore suggest that no harm will be done and it will be no injury to the Bill, if these finer difficulties are smoothed over in what I quite admit is bound to be an arbitrary way. If the Amendment which I am moving is adopted, there will have to be certain consequential results in subparagraph (3), and those consequences are contained in the following Amendments standing in my name.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The case put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I understand it, is that there may be hauliers who are starting in business and have not made a profit, but who might make a profit if they were allowed to continue in existence. They have nothing on their records to show that they are going to make a profit, in fact they have made losses, but, nevertheless, because it is possible for them to make a profit in the future, they should be compensated in some way for goodwill, and a notional

profits figure should be put down although they may have made a series of losses or an overall average loss. I appreciate that point, but I really do not think it is workable. We cannot possibly estimate the prospects of all these firms. All we can do is to go on the record of their past three years. If we are to try and base our compensation proposals on what their prospects may be, we shall be in appalling difficulties immediately. It may well be that firms which have made profits during the last three years have exceedingly bad prospects, and if we assess prospects properly we might find that they would probably make losses during the subse-quent three or five years. There is no reason to believe that a firm will make a profit in future just because it has made an average loss for the three years previous to transfer. It therefore seems to me to be wholly unrealistic to assume that every firm which has made a loss during the past three years will make a profit in future and should be compensated on some notional profit which, on its record, it has never made and which there is no reason to believe it ever will make.
So, while I appreciate the desire of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet this type of case, and there may be some cases of this sort, I do not see how it could possibly be done without altering the whole basis of compensation and saying that we shall not go on past records at all but will try and assess the future prospects of every firm in each case. As I say, there may be many firms whose records will show a profit but whose prospects for the future are such that they are unlikely to make any more profits, and to whom, therefore, nothing should be given by way of compensation for goodwill. The only reasonable way in which Parliament can proceed in this matter is to go on the ascertainable facts. In some cases it may be, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, rough and ready justice. One cannot help that, but I do not think it is so rough and ready. We see what their records have been for the past three years and decide what goodwill, if any, they should be paid according to their achievements during that period, and I suggest to the House that that is the only reasonable and practical way in which we can proceed in this matter.

Major Haughton: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that one of the


reasons why he rejects this suggestion is that it is impossible to assess the earnings or losses of a company, but surely we have to be consistent about this. The argument used yesterday was that the railway companies, or their shareholders, could not be compensated on arbitration or any other basis because the net maintainable revenue could not be ascertained in advance. You cannot have it both ways. If that is to be an argument why the shareholders should not receive a certain value for their shares, it cannot be argued the other way, that it is impossible to assess what the losses will be of a newlyformed road company.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary is not adopting a very generous or even a very practical attitude over this matter. I am quite sure that he would be the first person to admit that there must be a seed-time before there is a harvest, and that seed-time is very often a time of loss. Nevertheless, the ground is ploughed and sowed, and labour and organisation are spent upon it, and I cannot help thinking that it would not be impossible, if the Government would undertake to try, to ascertain in individual cases what in point of fact has been done to establish a future harvest in the way of creating goodwill and preparing the ground for business. The Government, if they would, could give consideration to that in individual cases.

Mr. Hollis: It is most important that we should do justice so far as we can in paying compensation, but I would like to bring up again the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) when we were talking about the larger "omnibus" Amendment. It is not merely a matter of compensation, it is also a matter of efficiency. A certain time has to elapse before the appointed day, and nothing could be more important to the country than that, during that time, those people who have still to manage the transport business of the country should have every motive for managing it efficiently, and should not feel that it does not matter whether they do their job properly or not. Also, as has been said, this happens to be a period when people are building up businesses, and a period, after the war, when it is important in the

national interest that businesses should be built up. After a time, when this Bill comes back as an Act, these things will be managed by the State, but time is to elapse before they are to be managed by the State, and it is of the most vital importance in the interests of the Government and of the nation that those who will manage the industry until then should be given what encouragement they can, or at least they should not be unnecessarily discouraged from putting their backs into this work during the short time which must elapse before their businesses are taken from them. Therefore, it is for the reason that it is in the national interest even more than because it would be an act of kindness to these particular individuals that I strongly commend this Amendment to the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE I.—(The Commission.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The first Amendment which has been selected is that in page 1, line 16.

Mr. Keeling: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I presume that you are not calling my Amendments—in line 2, after the first "the", insert "occasional" and after the first "and" insert "partial"—because of the Ruling that the enacting words:
Be it enacted by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons
etc., are not subject to Amendment. But that Ruling was given 15 years ago when Parliament was free, and surely it ought


not to be strictly applied today, when, owing to the Guillotine, our consent is only partial.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not called the hon. Member's Amendments because they have not been selected by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keeling: May I not make my point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be out of Order to make a point of Order on Amendments that are not being called.

Mr. Maclay: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not want to be tiresome but the position as I understand it is that the hon. Member was not allowed to make his point of Order because it was not a point of Order. May we get that Ruling absolutely clear, because it is a very important principle?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The clear answer is that one cannot question the selection of Amendments. The two Amendments in question have not been selected and, therefore, one cannot make a point of Order or enter into any discussion of them.

Mr. Assheton: May I ask, as a matter of confirmation, whether it is in fact permissible to put down an Amendment to that part of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not permissible.

8.15 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "shall", to insert:
be required to give his exclusive services to the Commission and subject thereto shall.
At 8.15 p.m. on the second of the three Allotted Days we now start the Report stage of this Bill. We have until two o'clock tomorrow morning, and then five hours tomorrow, and there are still some 350 Amendments to be dealt with. It therefore behoves me and everyone who speaks, to try to make our remarks as brief as possible, but I do not think anyone will begrudge me at any rate this one sentence, when I say how grossly and wholly inadequate that time is for matters which touch so nearly the lives of millions of people in this country.
The object of my Amendment is that the five members of the Commission should be required to give their exclusive services

to the Commission. It is necessary that I should indicate just a very small amount of the background to this Amendment. The original suggestion of the Opposition was that the number in the Commission should be increased from five to a greater number and that, with that greater number, it would be possible to have some whole-time members and some part-time members. That proposal was rejected at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and, therefore, we are driven to contemplate only a five member Commission. We say that a Commission of five members cannot do its job, unless the members are obliged to give their whole time to it.
I ask this House to consider what the Commission has to do. Let us take first merely its supervisory work. According to the right hon. Gentleman it is to be a policy-planning body. If it is to be a reality and not a mere mouthpiece of Whitehall the policy and planning work is something stupendous. Let us take, for a moment, the three great problems which it is the professed objective of this Bill to solve—co-ordination and integration of the forms of transport, that is rail, road, docks and then London transport, and the hotel branch taken into a sort of subsidiary position to be dealt with at the same time. That is a tremendous job, but the right hon. Gentleman has not indicated the basis on which it is to be done. That is to be left to this Commission, and is, in itself, a colossal task.
Then there is the question of the geographical basis. The Commission has to engage in geographical planning, which the functional executives are to work. Again, that is an enormous task. I would only make reference to the allocation of road haulage to long-distance needs. That will not work unless the allocation is done with great care, and is decentralised. I do not believe it will work except in small units, but assuming I am wrong, there must be local adjustment, and that is another task this Commission will have to do. On the question of charges, the right hon. Gentleman has said many times, mainly in answer to pressure from myself, that the Commission is to put forward schemes for charges. These schemes will be passed to the Tribunal, and will then go back to the Minister, and so on. Take this problem alone. I put it to hon. Members who approach this matter from a very different point of view: What are


the right standards for road transport rates, which are bound to be considered? What are the proper factors in regard to operational costs, and how much is to be allowed in future for raw materials, and what are the shortages going to be? The Commission has to be responsible for all these matters.
I have merely dealt with three of the major problems, but as everyone knows, there will be 5o others to be dealt with. It would be a stupendous task even if we stopped there, but of course it does not stop there. Let us take the question of staffing. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us what sort of staff he contemplates the Commission should have. Unless it is to be a mere affirmatory mouthpiece of the Ministry of Transport —and no one puts that forward as its conception—it must have a staff running into hundreds. This is the head of this public corporation, which is to be a great public trading corporation—that is the conception—and it must therefore have staff. This Commission of five will have to be responsible for organising the staff and seeing that it has the right people. I ask hon. Members to approach this matter from the point of view of the facts. In 1923, the four main line railway companies came into operation. Many people said that they were too big. If my recollection is right, the L.M.S. is the biggest railway company in the world. But imagine trying to run the four main line companies as one unit. Hon. Members opposite have said many hard things about the boards of directors of railway companies, but I would put this point in their favour. Broadly speaking, the directors were selected because they came from different parts of the area the company served, and they represented the big business interests which might send traffic to the company. There may have been defects which are more apparent to hon. Members opposite, but if did provide a geographical basis, and some expert knowledge of industry in respect of the different parts of the country the directors represented.
I ask the House to consider the responsibilities in regard to road haulage. Let hon. Members remember that after this Bill is passed, no goods can be moved more than 25 miles except by the Commission or by permission of the Commission. I am asking the House to con-

sider the large amount of responsibility there is for all the hauls over 25 miles. Then there are the docks and harbours, and the hotels, which are being taken over at the time when tourist traffic is put forward as a serious contributor to our dollar exchange. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider this public corporation strictly from their own point of view. They must agree that a public corporation has to have the most severe tests as to efficiency, and the personnel it employs. It is a more severe test than any private firm could have, and unless it is a severe test the corporation must fail like inefficient private firms have failed. Consistency would demand that hon. Members be the last to prescribe any lower standards of efficiency for the public corporation.
These five people are to be responsible for running this corporation, and apparently they are to be free to hold other occupations. I agree that they are not to be conflicting occupations, but I would ask hon. Members where the line is to be drawn as between conflicting occupations and membership of the Transport Commission. Hon. Members opposite probably think that membership of the executive of trade unions or high posts in the Transport and General Workers Union would conflict with membership of the Transport Commission. Suppose it was some other union. Suppose it was one of the great mineworkers' unions. Is it possible for someone with an important job in that sphere to do this work of which I have given the merest outline? Would it be possible for a director of I.C.I. or Unilevers, which is one of the biggest conglomerations. to be a member of this Commission?
The hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has suggested that it might interfere with the philanthropic or political activities of the members of the Commission. I am glad that an hon. Member opposite got up and supported the view I am putting forward to the House. I view with considerable perturbation the suggestion that when somebody is put on the Commission to run a great public corporation, he should, at the same time, be permitted to carry on political activities—whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal, or Communist. If you are putting someone in a position of this responsibility, with a corresponding salary


and allowances, I do not think you ought to subsidise him in that way, to carry on party politics as a half-time job.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Suppose the man is employed full time, and has certain free time. After all, he will not be working day and night. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that, in his own time, the man should not be allowed to attend a political meeting?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I say that he ought not to take a prominent part in politics. Every citizen is entitled to vote, and to instruct himself in politics, but a clear line can be drawn here between taking a responsible interest in politics— which is the duty of every citizen and playing a responsible part in politics. I say that if the man is prepared to take a position in helping to run a great public corporation like this he ought not to take a prominent part in politics. To subsidise him, to put him into a well-paid position of this kind, and then permit him to take a prominent part in party politics. would be a retrograde step.

Mr. H. Hynd: Would that apply to the chairman of a public corporation like the Port of London Authority?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member is putting the personal case of the present occupant of that office against me. I would point out that for 40 years this has been possible in connection with this authority, and that it has been found possible, in a local public authority of that kind, to permit it. The same principle has been applied to many other docks which are on a trustee basis. But this is a national body, which is to run a public corporation for the whole country directly under the Minister, which is to be answerable to him, and subject to his interference on a great many points.

Mr. Pryde: Does that line of reasoning apply to officials of the National Coal Board, who are active organisers for the Conservative Party?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have not the least idea of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I do not see how the two things are on the same level at all. The officials of the National Coal Board,

from the way he described them, must be of a very different status, and in a completely different position, from the five men who are to be chosen, by this Bill, to run the country's transport. I say that with these responsibilities it is ludicrous to imagine that the work will be done properly unless these men are employed on a whole time basis. By extending the number on the Commission it would be possible to provide for part-time employment, but with only five I suggest that part-time employment would be simply ludicrous. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Commission will be merely the mouthpiece of the Minister and Whitehall. If we are to have a public corporation let us have one which has a chance of doing the work.

Sir Arthur Salter: I rise with some reluctance to support this Amendment, my reluctance being due to the fact that I think that, under appropriate conditions, it would be extremely useful for part-time people to be associated with the more important parts of this great transport organisation. But I support the Amendment without hesitation because I think it is both unreasonable and illogical that the Minister should insist on being bound by Statute to having no more than five members of this Commission, and at the same time on being given the option of making those members either part-time or whole-time. I have said that part-time members would be useful on the Commission. I think it is a most useful function of the directors of railway companies at present, that they do afford a channel of communication between the services which they direct, and the Community and users who are the consumers of those services. That form of communication, with the fertilising influence that comes from users' and consumers' interests and needs, is even more required when you are setting up a system under which you no longer have the constant and pervasive influence that comes from a competitive system. I would, therefore, like to see part-time members on the Commission.
It seems to me, however, most unreasonable that the Minister should not only refuse a proposal that the Commission should be increased in numbers, but refuse even to give himself the option of increasing that number if, partly as a consequence of


having some part-time members, he should find that desirable. I cannot understand why he refuses himself that option. Surely, if we have regard to the duties of the Commission it is obvious that if it is possible at all for five men to carry out those duties effectively, it certainly will not be possible if some of them are only working part-time. Just think of the range of activity to be covered by the Commission—railways, roads, canals, hotels, docks, and harbours. Their responsibility for making policy must range over this field, and they must infuse energy into the whole of that vast organisation. The precise division of function between them and the different executives is difficult for us, at present, to foresee or estimate. I would describe a few of the tasks more fully, but for the fact that they have been covered so admirably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir Maxwell Fyfe). But I should like to put a little emphasis upon just one of their tasks. Whatever work may fall on the Executives, the task of co-ordinating the work of one Executive with another, and securing co-ordination over the whole system is a task which must fall upon the Commission itself and only on the Commission. It is a task of the utmost importance. It is the one legitimate purpose with which, I think, people on all sides of the House will agree if the Bill is to have some reality and some value in it. Most of us think that the different sections of the transport system would be better run under the present arrangements. But we all know that whether or not the main system is changed, better co-ordination is required, and for that purpose now something like a Transport Commission is desirable and necessary.
Think what that involves—the original inquiry, the constantly keeping up-to-date, the improving, the amending, the adjustment of co-ordination, between one part of the transport system and another. It is a terrific task, and even if the Transport Commission had not many other tasks in hand, how is it to be possible for a Commission of five men only, to carry out this task? It is not really a Transpor t Commission of five men, if only two are whole-time and three part-time. If the Minister is not prepared to say "If I have them part-time, I

must have more on the Commission," why will he not say, at least, "I will give myself the option to increase the number." If he would do that I personally—and I think others would be in the same position—would not oppose him on the particular point of exclusive service. Otherwise, if we have to choose between the Amendment and a Commission of five, some of whom are part-time —but in no case more than five—then certainly I shall support this Amendment.

Mr. Basil Nield: The Minister, I hope, will take the view that it is very right that the House as such should consider this extremely important matter of the constitution of the British Transport Commission and the way in which the function of its members should be distributed. It is plain from the slenderest acquaintance with this Bill that the Commission is charged with powers and responsibilities which are immense. It will, in fact, direct the whole policy of the nationalised system of transport, and everyone, accepting that, desires to see the best shape in the Commission and the best men members of it. There is to be a chairman and three or four members. I urge the House to consider, in view of the magnitude of the powers of the Commission, the desirability—indeed, this is essential—of its members giving their exclusive services to the duties which flow from their particular task. The House will observe that by Subsection (6) of this Clause there is a protection against a member of the Commission having an interest in a company, and, further than that, the Minister has power to investigate and to select only those who may have no real interest. I take the view that this Clause should not be necessary, for by including the words which my right hon. Friend has submitted, these matters would not be necessary, that we should have men who would give their whole time and would not be in a position to be objected to. We are not alone in holding views similar to this, because I observe that the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) in Committee upstairs said:
My own view, which I am sure is shared by the whole of my colleagues on this side of the Committee, is that there is nothing more essential in this Bill than that the members of the Commission shall be whole-time members, that they shall be in no way connected with outside interests, and that they


shall be in a position impartially to apply the policy which they think will best suit the transport industry throughout the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 4th February, 1947, col. 12.]
Indeed, the Minister himself said it was desirable to see members of the Commission serving whole time. It does not appear therefore that there is a great conflict in different parts of the House, and I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I do not think there is a very great difference between the right hon. Gentleman and other Members on that side or on this side of the House. In fact, it is indeed remarkable that an Amendment of this sort should have been necessary to have been moved by a. right hon. Gentleman on this side rather than by the Government themselves, because we have continuously heard not only in various Debates in this House, but in various Debates upstairs, criticisms from hon. Members opposite of people who were directors of private enterprise companies who were only part-time directors, and great criticism has been levelled in this particular instance against directors of railways that they were not whole-time directors. Some sneers have been made against them that they were not whole-time servants of the railways and I think. therefore, it is rather remarkable that this Amendment should not be favours ably considered by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends. A point was made by an hon. Member opposite as to what would be our attitude on this side of the House if someone who was employed on the Coal Board was mainly occupied in organising the Conservative Party. I would suggest to him that that point is covered by an Amendment which is going to be moved by the Minister himself immediately after this Amendment has been disposed of—in page 2, line 6, after "financial," to insert "or other".
I think that is the whole point of that Amendment, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman will move as a result of a request which I made to him during the Committee stage. Therefore, it is rather odd that there should be any resistance to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has rightly pointed out that many of us feel it would have been much wiser had the Commission

been larger in number only because part-time people could have been employed.
We are faced with two alternatives. It could be said that the ramifications of this Commission are very wide, covering a vast variety of different types of transport, and it would, therefore, be advisable to have members on the Commission who had experience of operating different types of canals and docks, but who would not be whole-time members. The argument could very easily be sustained, that we could have a large Commission of members who could be called upon to give extra technical advice—not detailed advice, because that would come from the Executive—people who could make broad decisions and who would not be required all the time. But that has not been the decision of the Government who have taken exactly the reverse view. They have said: "No, we want a different type of Commission. We want a chairman and we want four members, not people who are going to give extra technical advice, because that will come from the Executives—and the Minister will appoint the Executives—who have expert knowledge of canals, docks, buses and trams. We want four people who are going to take a view of the situation from the broadest angle and take decisions on that." There is no point in going over the argument against, because much was said upon it in the Committee upstairs. We have accepted that, for better or for worse, because it is the decision taken by the Government. All we say now is if the Government are to have four members on the Commission, who are going to carry out these duties, they must be whole-time members so that they can give us knowledge and security in the vast ramifications of a nationalised industry.
I think it is rather a quibble which was raised by an hon. Member as to a member of the Coal Board being the organiser of the Conservative Party, because if he glances at the Order Paper and sees the Amendment which the Minister is to move he will see that his argument cannot be sustained. Therefore, as the Minister has taken this decision, rightly or wrongly, that the Commission should consist of four, I urge him to go the whole hog, and justify his own decision by saying fairly and clearly, "We will have a few people who are going to have a tremendous task to do, but they will be employed solely on that task." In this way he will let every-


one in the industry know that these people are engaged in no other business; that we intend to pay them a salary to compensate them for what they have to give up outside, and that we will engage them as whole-time members for this important work.
If I remember aright, when this matter was being taken upstairs the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport was unable to be present. I am not complaining about that, because he was a very good attender and was never away except when engaged on matters of great importance. The argument used by the Parliamentary Secretary was that he was not rejecting the Amendment on the ground that we were wrong in making the point, but on the ground that the Minister should not commit himself so far ahead, as in 15 or 20 years' time it might be necessary to have part-time people. My answer to that is that if it is necessary to have part-time members of the Commission, we must have more members. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to allow himself a loophole for having part-time members of the Commission, he should allow himself a loophole for having more members of the Commission. If he is going to take the rigid line, "I shall limit the Commission to this number" then we must accept that for better or worse, but we must insist that the Commission should consist of four full-time members.

Mr. Gallacher: The argument put up by hon. Members opposite on this Amendment is a condemnation of the fraudulent character of the capitalist method of production. There are Members on the other side of the House and maybe one or two on this side who are Members of Parliament in addition to being directors of large companies which embrace perhaps 10, 15 or 20 smaller companies. What a situation and what awful arguments we are getting from those who are in that class. Even if the arguments were good, it is desirable that Members on the other side of the House should be put out of pain as quickly as possible. I was interested in the speech yesterday, of the right hon. Gentleman who, in my absence, was confused with the Member for West Fife—a situation which I hope does not arise again. The right hon. Gentleman made very good arguments, but what is our attitude towards this? Our attitude

is simple. The right hon. Gentleman may have made good arguments, but the Minister has a very good Bill and we think that the Minister is a very good Minister.

Brigadier Mackeson: Who are "we"?

Mr. Oliver Poole: I do not think that the hon. Member has made the position absolutely clear. I should like to know the views of the Communist Party in this House, and I should like to know if the hon. Member is in favour of part-time directors or not.

Mr. Gallacher: I have made the position as clear as I possibly can. I am in favour of the Minister, and of the very good Bill which the Minister has presented.

Mr. Digby: Like the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) and the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), I do not object to the principle of part-time members of the Commission. But I agree that if we are to have part-time members we certainly need more. I do not understand why the Minister has resisted the enlargement of the Commission. The Commission will consist of the chairman and four members. There are obviously tasks which cannot be delegated to the chairman, so that really there are four members and they will have a tremendous lot of work to carry out. For example, one of these members is to be on the Central Transport Consultative Committee. I hope that the Minister is going to try to make that committee function, because if he is that is going to take up a lot of the time of one member of the Commission. I really think they are going to have their hands pretty full.
What are we doing? We are setting up a new hierarchy over and above the existing hierarchy. Take the case of the Southern Railway. Decisions are now made by that body. In future there are to be three tiers above it—the Railways Executive, the Commission and then the Minister. The Commission stands between the upper millstone of the Minister, and the nether millstone of the Executive. The Minister has been particularly careful in this Bill to deprive the Executive of a lot of powers which we on this side of the House thought necessary. For example, they are not allowed to make certain appointments which I thought they


should have made. It therefore follows that a great deal of work has got to be done by the five members of this Commission if the whole thing is going to work. It is true that the Minister has obtained very wide powers over the Commission itself, but he has been at pains to assure us on the Committee stage, and on the Second Reading that he is going to use those powers as little as he can and is going to allow this Commission to review the whole field of transport, and the various industries which make up transport. I just cannot believe that if one or two of the four members of the Commission, excluding the chairman, are only part-time members, it is going to be possible for those permanent members to do a really big job as is intended under this Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I sincerely hope that in order that we may form a proper estimate of this Amendment, the Minister will use the opportunity to explain clearly what the functions of the Commission are to be. We have gone through 31 sittings of the Standing Committee in a day and a half here, and it is not yet clear what this Commission is to try to do. It was on that argument that we based this Amendment. The Commission is obviously a policymaking body. The Parliamentary Secretary looks at me as though I were stupid, but I do not believe that he could at this minute define what the functions of the Commission are to be. We know that it is to be a policy-making body, but the Commission falls between the Minister and the Executive. The point which I should like to bring to the attention of the House is that if the Commission is really a financially responsible body, it ought to have a financial autonomy, and if it has not a financial autonomy, then the Minister is not a responsible man. I feel very strongly that hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House who have been moving Amendments to this and other Bills to take powers from the Minister, may have been working on the wrong lines. I believe that we ought to have been moving Amendments consistently to put complete responsibility on the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: The question is whether membership should be whole-time. It is not one of the responsibility of the Minister.

Mr. Maclay: I was trying to develop my point. If we really knew whether it the Minister or the Commission was responsible for this enormous undertaking which is contemplated, then we could come to a very clear view on whether or not these officials should or should not be full-time. I would not develop my argument further, because I would not dream of incurring your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point sufficiently clear. If the Minister would explain whether he or the Commission is responsible, I should be very grateful and I should know how to vote.

Mr. Barnes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) when he moved this Amendment prefaced his remarks by saying that it was now 8.15 p.m. on the second day and we had reached the Report stage of the Bill. I would remind him and his hon. Friends that the greater part of the 12½ hours which we have spent in consideration of the Bill has been spent on Amendments which he and his hon. Friends, quite rightly and properly, moved. A considerable number of them had already been discussed at some length during the Committee stage of the Bill. This Amendment which we are now considering was exhaustively debated and considered during the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not complain of that. I recognise that the question of the size and the functions of the Commission has a very important part in the consideration of the whole set-up. I think it is desirable, when we are considering the number of points that the Opposition are happy to remind us have not been discussed, to remember how they are using the time at their disposal.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent the case. Far from being exhaustively discussed, the Debate in Committee was started at 10.35 a.m, and the matter was disposed of before 11.0 a.m. on the same day. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is really quite right in saying that it was exhaustively discussed.

Mr. Keenan: On a point of Order. The interjection made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) is not strictly true. At the


first meeting in Committee upstairs we spent two and a half hours and only reached line 15, by the end of the sitting.

Mr. Poole: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think the point is quite irrelevant.

Brigadier Mackeson: Further to that point, the Minister must admit that we have not taken up time in discussing many of his Amendments, most of which we have accepted. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that hon. Members on this side of the House should expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to our arguments and Amendments.

Mr. Barnes: I do not know that I am alleging that it is unreasonable. I was reminding the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who opened the Debate on this matter, of one or two points which I thought were of general interest. In regard to this Amendment, the position of the Commission cannot be separated from the division of function between a Commission and the Executive. On the Second Reading, and at subsequent discussions in Committee, I made it perfectly plain that one of the major reasons why the Commission has been formed with the small constitution of five persons, is to ensure that it carries out its main task as a policy body and that it should not be led by the breaking up of the Commission as a team—which very often happens if the membership is enlarged—into the process of becoming intimately responsible for the management and operation of this transport undertaking. That is a function which, clearly, is delegated to the Executive bodies.
Therefore, if we take the number of the Commission, which is a policy body, and if we consider it in relation to the Executive, which will be established from time to time to deal with the functional services, I contend that the total number of persons detailed to run these services is quite adequate for the purpose. I see no sense in merely adding to the number of highly salaried persons just for the sake of doing it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby emphasised three main tasks which the Commission will have to carry out. Before I proceed to deal with those three main tasks, I would remind hon. Members that in Committee upstairs I stated quite clearly that

it is the intention of the Government that the five members of the Commission shall be full time Members. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) was quite right when he indicated that the difference is more imaginary than real. If it is the intention of the Government that the five members of the Commission shall be full time members, I fail to see why my hon. Friends will persist in Amendments of this description.

Mr. Poole: I apologise for interrupting. The right hon. Gentleman said that I used the word "imaginary." It is not imaginary at all. All we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to put into the Bill what he says he wants. That does not seem to me to be imaginary.

Mr. Barnes: I have pointed out that it is not necessary to put what is the intention of the Government into the Bill. If hon. Members will reflect for a moment they will see that there is advantage in matters of this description in leaving the matter free. It becomes increasingly difficult to get legislative action to deal with matters that vary from time to time, and one can easily see, and foresee, that there may be circumstances in the future of a character that would justify a departure from the general practice to meet some emergency or special circumstances that may not last for a long period. lit may be desirable from time to time to depart from the rigid position that we must always be bound under all circumstances and in all cases to insist upon this rule being applied to the members of the Commission. Therefore, in economic matters of this description, there is considerable advantage, provided the Government make their intention clear— there is nothing to be lost and there is sometimes everything to be gained—in just leaving that freedom to meet any special circumstances that may arise.

Sir A. Salter: Is the Minister asking us to rely on intentions as an alternative to relying on provisions in the Statute? Does he mean that he cannot conceive of the Act lasting longer than the Government and the Minister?

Mr. Barnes: What I am visualising is just the opposite. Once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament its advantages will be so apparent to the people of this country that it will become a permanent institution. The public transport service


is a public institution and one must look ahead and make provision for circumstances that arise from time to time in the life of the State. We have had two experiences in our lifetime of the strategic value and importance of the transport services in two world wars, and the necessity to be able to accommodate ourselves to circumstances of that character. Even recently we have passed through a fuel crisis of some magnitude, and it is to meet emergencies and contingencies of that character that I feel it is an advantage to leave the position free. Therefore, the provisions that govern the Commission at the present moment do not prevent the members of the Commission from being fulltime members; the intention is to start off with fulltime membership but to leave it free in the future to meet any circumstances that may arise.
I want to emphasise that the function of the Commission, in my view, does not represent that exhaustion of its time which has been assumed by many hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. All its functions are of a policy character and policy decisions do not require the same amount of time as the day to day management of large undertakings. The Commission's job is to fulfil the purpose which Parliament has in view in passing this Bill. It will be responsible for co-ordination, it is true, but it will not have to carry out the task of co-ordination. That will be done from day to day by the executive bodies. The Commission will be responsible for seeing that the Executive work together to a common purpose.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised that road haulage services would have to be organised on probably a local or an area or a district basis. I do not disagree with that contention. It will not be the Commission's job to organise the road haulage services on a local or a district or an area basis. That will be the job of the Road Haulage Executive. He stated finally that the Commission would be responsible for preparing this charges scheme. That again is true, but the Commission, I assume, will have around it a very small but high-powered technical staff that will be able to do all the preparatory work of that description.
Therefore, having examined this matter from the beginning and listened to the arguments of hon. Members, I do not see that there is any case for increasing the

number of members of this Commission. If the members were increased it would, I suggest, eventually lead them into the departmentalisation of their own individual work and functions. That is the position which we must avoid in a policy body. We do not want the members of the Commission to form themselves into a body of departmental Executives supervising any particular branch of transport. The purpose of the Commission essentially is to see that the purpose we have in mind of an adequate, co-ordinated, efficient transport service is carried out and performed by the Executives. That being the case, I trust the House will support the Government in this decision, because I believe that keeping the Commission small will compel it to act as a team. It will not break down its services, it will assume collective responsibility for this purpose and, by assuming collective responsibility as a Commission, by that process more than any other, the Minister and Whitehall will be relieved from the responsibility of conducting the affairs of this public transport service. Again, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) asked the right hon. Gentleman a specific question; who is responsible to this sovereign House of Commons for, as the Minister calls it, the adequate and co-ordinated transport service of this country, himself or the Commission?

Mr. Barnes: On the Floor of the House obviously the Minister is responsible. Questions by Members of Parliament about the Commission or the Executive it will be the responsibility of the Minister to answer.

Mr. Langford-Holt: All the questions?

Mr. Barnes: All questions affecting the Commission and the Executive as individual appointments. The Minister does not carry, of course, the day-to-day operations of the service. That was one of the reasons why it was felt desirable in Committee that the Minister should appoint the Executives, and that Parliament should have access to information about the Executives from the Minister.

Mr. Maclay: But the Minister will agree —or make it clear if it is not so—that what


he has just said is not at all the practice, or what has been established in the case of the Coal Board and the Ministry of Fuel and Power? That is a most important statement.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish I could imitate the trustfulness of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and adopt the attitude that the Minister is all right, the Bill is all right, and anybody who says anything more than that is wrong.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member is not right.

Mr. Brown: I will give way if the hon. Member wants to interrupt. I was saying that I would like to imitate that trustful attitude, but I think it would represent a surrender of the critical functions of Parliament. I agree with much of what the Minister has just said, but I suppose that hon. Members who are incapable of supporting the Government when it is right, and opposing it when it is wrong—

Mr. Gallacher: You are wrong whatever you do.

Mr. Brown: I agree with the Minister that the function of the Transport Commission should be a policy-making and not an executive one. I think he is to be complimented on drawing that distinction as sharply and clearly as he has done, because it is vital to the good administration of that body in the future. I agree that these men should not be executives. I agree that they ought not to be heads of departments within the Transport Commission. On all that I could not agree with him more, but what is he asked to do? He is asked not to tie his hands too closely, either about the numbers of people on the Board or whether they should be full or part-time. That is the whole point and pith of this argument. I should have thought that the right line for the Minister was to be utterly inflexible in principle, and infinitely adaptable in administration, but what do I find? I find that when we are dealing with issues of principle like compensation, he is so flexible that Heaven alone knows what the compensation will be. But when we are dealing with administration, he is so utterly inflexible that it has to be five members on the Board—not six and not four. Five alone will satisfy the requirements of the Minister. He himself is a

passionate pleader for restraint on his own freedom in future. He is not merely not in favour of liberty for the rest of us, but is specially opposed to liberty for himself. The sensible thing to say here would be, "Certainly we do not want a larger Commission than is necessary; we want it to be policy-making and not executive, but we want it to be flexible, and to leave our hands free to increase or diminish the number as is necessary. We will leave it to circumstances to determine whether it is necessary for full-time or part-time."

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment does not deal with the size of the Commission.

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, but with respect, it deals with whether it should be full-time or part-time membership, and I submit that there is a connection between that, and the number required on the Commission. I should have thought the best thing was for the Minister to keep his hands free, whereas he emerges as a passionate advocate of slavery for himself in the future.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we have got past the Subsection which says that the Commission shall consist of a chairman and four members. That is over and done with.

Mr. Brown: I was not aware of that, Sir, if I may say so. I make the simple suggestion that there is a connection between the number of people to be employed, and whether they are to be employed full-time or part-time. If we cannot discuss them in a related fashion, we cannot discuss them in any fashion at all.

Brigadier Mackeson: The right hon. Gentleman put up a good case for part-time directors, and it might well be that if we had more information, we would agree that part-time members would be desirable. I can understand his argument for a small Commission. It has many advantages, which were discussed in Committee, and on balance I see the value and validity of the argument. But what worried me about his speech is how the benefit of co-ordination is to be achieved unless each member of the Commission functions 100 per cent. He mentioned technical staff. That is one thing about which my hon. Friends and I are perturbed, and which I believe worries hon.


Members opposite. We do not wish to see great executive power handed over to civil servants—

Mr. Barnes: May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? They will not be civil servants in this case; they will be experts, and technicians, drawn from the transport industry.

Brigadier Mackeson: I fully accept the point. My point is that they will not in fact be executive officers. They will be staff officers without responsibility. What worries me is that unless these members of the Commission are whole-time members, they may quite inadvertently spend more time on other duties than they would if it were not possible for them to have outside duties. I am sure the Minister accepts that as a most difficult point—[Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would either leave the House or be quiet to take some interest in this serious Debate.

Mr. Gallacher: I am quite unconscious of what I am accused.

Brigadier Mackeson: The hon. Member does not listen and interrupts with sneers and without rising in his place. The point I want to make is that there are only five members of this Commission, and that at any time during five or six months of the year one member will be on leave. It will be necessary for one member to be off duty for a month or so at any given time during the six summer months. It may also be necessary for one or other of the members to go abroad. I hope that will be insisted upon by the Minister. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister remains Minister, he will insist that Russia and Canada and other countries should be visited so that the problems there can be studied. This absence will weaken the Commission very much. It will mean that during half the year there will be only three or four members of the Commission in the country. One member may be sick, which will leave only three, and if they take on other part-time directorships, there may be only two members. This is a serious point, and I hope the Minister will consider the difficulties. Surely, the real answer is to increase the size of the Commission, to have whole-time employees, and to make quite certain that there is no question of outside influences from the Socialist, Conservative,

or Liberal Parties, or even the Communist Party. Let us keep politics out of the Commission; let us see that it is efficient and that it works. The members of the Commission must give all their working hours to their job.

Mr. Assheton: It is rather difficult for the House, without a little further information, to come to a conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: There is no difficulty.

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is perfectly satisfied with the Bill as drafted, and is ready to accept it. It is a small matter to him that about 200 Amendments have been accepted by the Minister. I am sure the hon. Member would not have bothered about any of them. Some of us, however, are taking this Bill seriously, and I want to put one or two points about policy. What we have to decide is whether the members of the Commission, of whom there are to be five, should be whole-time or part-time. That is the issue. In Committee the Opposition pressed very hard for a larger Commission, because they felt it would be useful to have some outside members who were not full-time members, and they thought that could be achieved only if the Commission were as numerous as nine members; but with only five members, the Opposition took the view that it was necessary that they should be full-time members. The Minister has told us that these five members will deal with questions of policy, and policy only. What I am a little doubtful about is what the Minister includes under the term "policy."
I would remind the House that the Commission are to take over at least five very big different interests. They are to take over the railways. I might point out that the two largest railway companies, the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R., which are by far the biggest railways in the world, are respectively the second and third biggest companies in the world, including all the companies of America. Secondly, they are to take over the whole of the road transport business. Thirdly, they are to take over, or to make arrangements for, the docks and harbours. Finally. they are to take over all the railway hotels, of which there are more than 70. The L.M.S. is the biggest hotel keeper in the whole of Europe. The Commission will


be undertaking a fairly big business, and the House must recognise that. What are the kind of questions of policy which the Commission will discuss? I want to give one or two illustrations to the Minister so that he can tell us. I will draw my illustrations from the railways, about which I know rather more than I do about some of the other topics. Take the question of staff relations. There are more than 600,000 railway employees at the present time. May I take it that the major aspect of labour relations will be a matter of policy for the Commission to discuss? Will that be among the problems which the Commission has to consider?

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Assheton: I have a number of questions to put to the Minister before he replies. That is the first one; would that subject be considered a question of high policy? I should have thought it would. Then we come to the physical management—to the track, for instance. The railway companies have 52,000 miles of track. It is a matter of great importance to them, a matter of high policy, as to whether they are to make use of concrete sleepers instead of wooden sleepers, owing to difficulties in getting timber. Would that be a matter of policy which the Commission would discuss or not? Then the railway companies own more than no steamships. It is a matter of great importance to the railway companies to decide what type of ship they are to use and order. Would that be a matter which the Commissioners would consider or would it not?
Again, there are locomotives—the railway companies have more than 20,000 locomotives, and there are all sorts of differences of opinion between the different companies as to the best type of locomotive. We consider, in the railway companies, that that is a matter of high policy. Would it be a matter which the Minister would think the Commission should deal with, or would it be left to the Railway Executive? Then again the railway companies own for example more than 50,000 houses. Would it be a matter for the Commission to consider

whether those houses are to be equipped in a certain way, whether they are to be brought thoroughly up to date—as some of them unfortunately are not? Would that be a matter of high policy for the Commission or would it be left to the Railway Executive? Would it be a matter of policy for the Commission to decide what is to happen to the horses, of which the railway companies have more than 9,000? Is the problem of dealing with the horses one for the Commission or will it be left to the Railway Executive?
I give these illustrations of some of the matters which are high matters of policy. Supposing there are differences of opinion on the Railway Executive, which is possible, on the kind of locomotive to be used. Will that go up to the Commission for their decision? Finally we come to such large questions as rates. That is an immense problem. The question of rates and the policy to be adopted in regard to rates and fares, and the whole problems of co-ordination, are obviously problems for the Commission. Until we know the answer to all these questions I find it a little difficult to conclude what will be the duties of these Commissioners. If they really have to consider all the matters of policy which may come up from the Railway Executives, I cannot believe that five men can possibly do the work. I would certainly agree with my right hon. Friend and others behind me who have supported this Amendment in insisting that those five men should be whole time. If the Minister would be good enough to give an answer to a few of the questions I have put to him, they are only a small selection out of a large number, I think the House would be in a better position to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Barnes: I can answer them all. Staff relations, tracks, concrete or timber sleepers, locomotives, housing for railway staffs, horses—they all come under the Railway Executive. Rates and charges will be the responsibility of the Commission in the first instance, to frame and submit to the tribunal.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 317.

Division No. 155.]
AYES.
[7.43 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr Hon. L. W


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Keeling, E. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Drayson, G. B.
Kendall, W. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drewe, C.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Barlow, Sir J.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lambert, Hon. G.



Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel W.
Langford-Holt, J.


Beechman, N. A.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K


Bennett, Sir P.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Boothby, R.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M
Linstead, H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gage, C.
Lipson, D. L.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Glyn, Sir R.
Lucas, Maj. Sir J.


Buchan-Hepburn P. G. T
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Granville, E. (Eye)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Butcher, H. W.
Gridley, Sir A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Grimston, R. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Byers, Frank
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Haughton, S. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W


Cole, T. L.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marsden, Capt. A.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hollis, M. C.
Maude, J. C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Medlicott, F.



Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A.
Mellor, Sir J.


De la Bère, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Digby, S. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)




Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Nicholson, G.
Ropner, Col. L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Nield, B. (Chester)
Ross, Sir R.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Scott, Lord W.
Touche, G. C.


Nutting, Anthony
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Vane, W. M. F.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Wadsworth, G.



Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Walker-Smith, D


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Pickthorn, K.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Pitman, I. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, C. (Torquay)



Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rayner, Brig. R.
Studholme, H. G.
York, C


Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Sutcliffe, H.



Renton, D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts. Emrvs (Merioneth)
Tooling, William
Commander Agnew and Major Conant.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Deer, G.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Delargy, Captain H. J
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Diamond, J.
Irving, W. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Dobbie, W.
Janner, B


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dodds, N. N.
Jay, D. P. T.


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jager, G. (Winchester)


Austin, H. L.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Bacon, Miss A
Dumpleton, C. W
John, W.


Baird, J
Durbin, E. F. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Balfour, A.
Dye, S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Barstow, P. G
Edelman, M.
Keenan, W.


Barton, C.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Battley, J. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
King, E. M.


Bechervaise, A. E
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Belcher, J. W.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Kinley, J.


Beswick, F.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lang, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lavers, S.


Bing, G. H. C
Ewart, R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Binns, J.
Fairhurst, F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, A
Farthing, W. J.
Leonard, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Field, Captain W. J.
Leslie, J R.


Boardman, H.
Follick, M.
Levy, B W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bowden, Flg.-offr. H. W
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fraser, H. (Hamilton)
Lipton, Lt.Col. M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Logan, D. G.



Bramall, Major E. A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Longden, F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gallagher, W.
Lyne, A. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ganley, Mrs. C S
McAdam, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gibbins, J
McAllister, G.


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Gilzean, A.
McEntee, V. La T


Buchanan, G.
Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G.


Burden, T. W.
Goodrich, H. E.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N.W)


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
McKinlay, A. S.


Callaghan, James
Grey, C. F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grierson, E.

McLeavy, F


Chamberlain, R. A
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Champion, A. J
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Chater, D.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Cobb, F. A
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Leslie
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Coldrick, W.
Hall, W. G.
Marquand, H. A.


Collick, P.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Collins, V. J
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mathers, G.


Colman, Miss G. M
Hardman, D. R
Mayhew, C. P.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hardy, E. A
Medland, H M


Cook, T. F.
Harrison, J.
Messer, F.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Middleton, Mrs. L


Corlett, Dr. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mikardo, Ian


Corvedale, Viscount
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Cove, W. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Mitchison, Major G. R


Crawley, A.
Hobson, C. R.
Monslow, W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, P.
Montague, F


Daggar, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Moody, A. S.


Daines, P.
Hoy, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hubbard, T.
Morley, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Murray, J. D.







Nally, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Naylor, T. E.
Shurmer, P.
Viant, S. P.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Walkden, E.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Simmons, C. J.
Walker, G. H.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Skinnard, F. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Watkins, T. E.


Paget, R. T.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Watson, W. M.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Solley, L. J.
Weitzman, D.


Pargiter, G. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Parkin, B. T.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Sparks, J. A.
West, D. G.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stamford, W.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Pearson, A.
Steele, T.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Stephen, C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Porter, E. (Warringtn)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wilkes, L.


Price, M. Philips
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Wilkins, W. A.


Proctor, W. T.
Swingler, S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pryde, D. J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Symonds, A. L.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Randall, H. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ranger, J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Rankin, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williamson, T.


Rhodes, H.
Thomson, Rt. Hn, G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Willis, E.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Robens, A.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wise, Major F. J.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tiffany, S.
Woodburn, A.


Ross, Willlam (Kilmarnock)
Timmons, J.
Wyatt, W.


Royle, C.
Titterington, M. F.
Yates, V. F.


Scollan, T.
Tolley, L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Scott-Elliot, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.



Sharp, Granville
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Usborne, Henry
Mr Collindridge and Mr. Popplewell.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[9.34 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Pete, Brig. C. H. M.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Houghton, S. G.
Pickthorn, K.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitman, I. J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q
Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)


Barlow, Sir J.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Howard, Hon. A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J
Renton, D.


Birch, Nigel
Hurd, A
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Brown, W J. (Rugby)
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kendall, W. D.
Ross, Sir R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Butcher, H. W.
Lambe[...], Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Byers, Frank
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cole, T. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, H. C. (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Maj. Sir J,
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)


Digby, S. W.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Teeling, Willlam


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J, H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wadsworth, G.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Gage, C.
Medlicott, F.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grant, Lady
Nicholson, G.
York, C.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Nield, B. (Chester)



Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Mr. Studholme and


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant.




NOES. 


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bramall, Major E. A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Alpass, J. H.
Buchanan, G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Burden, T. W.
Deer, G.


Attewell, H. C.
Burke, W. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Austin, H. L.
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, Captain H. J.



Bacon, Miss A.
Callaghan, James
Diamond, J.


Baird, J.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Dobble, W.


Balfour, A.
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Chater, D.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Barstow, P. G.
Chetwynd, G R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Dumpleton, C. W


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Coldrick, W.
Dye, S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, P.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C


Benson, G.
Collindridge, F.
Edelman, M.


Beswick, F.
Collins, V. J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Binns, J.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Blackburn, A. R.
Cook, T. F.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Blyton, W. R.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Boardman, H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Ewart, R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Cove, W. G.
Fairhurst, F.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Crawley, A.
Farthing, W. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Creasman, R. H. S.
Field, Captain W. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Daggar, G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Daines, P.
Follick, M.







Foot, M. M.
McAllister, G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Forman, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Simmons, C. J.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
McGhee, H. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Gallacher, W.
MoLeavy, F.
Solley, L. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibbins, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Gooch, E. C.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stamford, W.


Goodrich, H. E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Steele, T.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stephen, C.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Marquand, H. A.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Strachey, J.


Grey, C. F.
Mathers, G.
Strauss, G R. (Lambeth)


Grierson, E.
Mayhew, C. P.
Stubbs, A. E.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H M.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Swingler, S.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, A. L.


Gunter, R. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Guy, W. H.
Mitchison, Major G. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hall, W. G.
Moody, A. S,
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Hardman, D. R.
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thurtle, Ernest



Harrison, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tiffany, S


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L
Timmons, J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Moyle, A.
Titterington, M. F.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Murray, J. D
Tolley, L.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Hobson, C. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holman, P.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Usborne, Henry



House, G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Hoy, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Hubbard, T.
Oliver, G. H.
Walkden, E.



Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Walker, G. H.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Warbey, W. N.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pargiter, G. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B, T.
Watson, W. M.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Irving, W. J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Weitzman, D.


Jay, D. P. T.
Pearson, A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
West, D G.


John, W.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, E. (Warringtn)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Price, M. Philips
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Proctor, W. T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.
Wilkes, L.


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, C.
Randall, H. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


King, E. M.
Ranger, J.
Willey, O. C. (Cleveland)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Rankin, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kinley, J.
Raid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lang, G.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lavers, S.
Richards, R.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williamson, T


Leo, Miss J (Cannock)
Robens, A.
Willis, E.


Leonard, W.
Roberts, Goronwy, (Caernarvonshire)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Leslie, J R
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wise, Major F. J.


Levy, B. W.
Ross, Willlam (Kilmarnock)
Woodburn, A


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Royle, C.
Wyatt, W.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Scollan, T.
Yates, V. F.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Logan, D. G.
Sharp, Granville




Longden, F.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Lyne, A. W.
Shurmer, P.
Mr. Hannan and


McAdam, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Popplewell.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "financial," to insert "or other."
This Amendment—and the following Amendment—is designed to meet an

undertaking which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) in Standing Committee, and seeks to ensure that the Minister should satisfy himself that no member of the Commission should have a financial


or other interest which is likely to affect the proper discharge of his duties.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to withhold credit where it is due. He will recall that a considerable time was spent in Committee in discussing a similar Amendment moved by the Opposition and I hope he will agree that we played some part in persuading him to make this alteration.

Mr. Barnes: I am gratified to find that we have unanimity on this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, leave out "him in the discharge," and insert "prejudicially the discharge by him."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Orders of the Day — FIFTEENTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 141, line 24, at the end, to insert:
in Subsection (1) of Section twenty-one the words 'and not exceeding ten.'
This completes the process which I began with the Financial Resolution No. 2, which enabled the Commission to increase its staff beyond the number of 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

8.12 p.m.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Commission.)

Mr. Speaker: In calling upon the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) to move the next Amendment, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed it in conjunction with the following two Amendments to line 38.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Commission shall not engage in the carriage of goods by road other than ordinary long distance carriage as defined in section thirty-eight of this Act, except for traffic originating from or destined for carriage by rail.
We have now reached a Clause which deals with the powers of the Commission. One of their first powers is to carry goods and passengers by rail, road, and inland waterways within Great Britain, and the purpose of this Amendment is to restrict that power to the long-distance haulage of goods. The second Amendment we are discussing seeks to restrict the powers of the Commission to carry passengers by road, either in so far as they take over the London Passenger Transport Board, or when an approved scheme, under Part IV of the Bill, is put up. Members opposite used at one time to talk a good deal about the mandate extended to them at the time of the Election. I have long ago, I am glad to say, lost the document entitled, "Let Us Face the Future", but I am quite satisfied that whatever that document did or did not contain the story which was sold to the country about goods

haulage was that they intended to nationalise the railways and long-distance road haulage. That case was put for-ward, all over the country. Under the Bill as at present drafted, not only will the Government take over long-distance haulage, but they will become the largest owners of short-distance haulage, which is hardly the case which Members opposite presented to the country at the time of the Election—

Mr. Mellish: I fought a by-election recently, when I told my people that the Government would nationalise all forms of transport. In that by-election the Tory candidate lost his deposit.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member's observation illustrates the progress of our forces. I was talking about the policy presented at the General Election. At the General Election, I remember, a programme of a more modest character was put forward. For my own part, I had no doubt as to what the Government's intentions were. I was always clear that having taken over long-distance road haulage as a first step, they would, as soon as possible, get as many hauliers as possible under their control. Let me take the provisions of the Bill. The acquisition of the short-distance haulier takes place in two ways. One is that they take over a haulage firm without taking the whole of it, if they are satisfied it is predominantly long-distance. In the process they take over many short-distance hauls as well, and in taking over the railways, they take over firms like Pickfords and a great deal not only of short-distance hauliers but also of cut price traffics which under the proposals of Clause 38, would have accepted carriage of livestock and liquids in bulk.
I should like to direct the attention of Members to the situation which will result. There will be left a number of hauliers operating within the narrow and restricted limits of 25 miles. These private hauliers may not at any time go beyond their 25 miles limit, except by licence, application for which will have to be made to their present competitors. They will, therefore, be normally limited to 25 miles from their operating centres. Against them will be competing this great national transport monopoly, with all its resources and powers at its disposal. Hon. Members opposite may say, "Well, don't you


believe in competition?" We do but we believe in competition on something like fair terms.

Mr. Gallacher: I.C.I.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hardly thought the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would hold up I.C.I. as an example to the Government. The way in which this competition will be conducted will, I think, inevitably be unfair. To start with, the resources of the Commission and the Transport Board are immense. It will be a comparatively simple thing to undercut one of the short-distance hauliers at any time when it pleases the Commission to do so. They can lower their prices and their charges and they can do so by putting up the charges upon the long-distance traffic. No one can complain because you cannot go to anyone else except the Commission. So far as the Commission are concerned, they can put up prices on long distances as high as they like in order to subsidise short-distance competition. The Commission can go to the trader in a town and say, "Do not bother whether it is 25 miles or 26 miles; we can carry your goods any distance you like, so give us a quotation to carry your goods and we will deliver them." Whereas the private haulier cannot offer those promises, not because he is not willing, but because the Government are preventing him from doing so.
In those circumstances it is plain that what will happen will be this. The smaller private hauliers operating in this narrow 25 miles will rapidly be driven out of business altogether. Their earnings will be reduced and at an appropriate time they will be taken over, but taken over of course in a more or less bankrupt condition, to which they will have been reduced by the operations of the Commission. These operations can be very easy and cheap to conduct, and though I am not concerned with the firm mentioned by the hon. Member for West Fife, there are private combines which use these methods to crush out competition in their awn industry, a thoroughly undesirable thing, which this Government have made no attempt whatsoever to stop. No legislation has been proposed or suggested by any Member of the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Sparks: I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that in answer to a very similar question last night in this House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said that he was not aware of a single instance in which that had occurred.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am sure the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) does not wish to mislead the House. He asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend could give a single instance. My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that there was not one single instance.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is under a slight misapprehension. It was not the transport industry in particular which was mentioned. It is common knowledge to Members on all sides of the House that taking British industry as a whole, we could all say that we have found instances in which a group of firms have placed themselves in a powerful position, not by producing better things but by undercutting their competitors and on the basis of the immense finances which they had at their disposal have crowded out the weaker element.

Mr. Gallacher: Electricity.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is precisely the position which we have here. The Government and this Commission could undercut these men.

Mr. Gallacher: rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the hon. Member for West Fife has talked enough.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Too much.

Mr. Thorneycroft: During the Committee stage it was suggested to us that the Amendment which we put down to achieve this end would be impracticable because there was a certain amount of road haulage of a short-distance character which would have to be carried out by the railway companies in order to effect a clearance from those railways. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that point is adequately dealt with at the end of the Amendment, because in those circumstances we allow the Commission to conduct traffic of that kind. This surely is the position about road haulage, that the Government should carry out the policy which they stated they


would carry out when they took over the long-distance haulage, and that they should not start carrying short-distance traffic which they admitted they were hardly suitable to undertake.
As far as the second Amendment is concerned, I do not want to elaborate it a great deal as some of my hon. Friends will wish to speak on it, but the point here is very similar. Under the Bill the Government take over, as far as the passenger traffic is concerned, the London Passenger Transport Board. Later on, under Part IV of the Bill they may, without a scheme being put up, take over road passenger transport in a particular area. Under Clause 2 (2, e)—if I may have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for one moment. [Interruption.] I do not need to apologise for asking for his attention. We on this side of the Committee do not always get satisfactory replies to our suggestions, but we do like to think that our arguments are listened to.
Under Clause 2 (2, e) it appears to me—and the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that the Commission is empowered to take over by agreement any road passenger undertaking. That would include road passenger undertakings which have nothing to do with the London Passenger Transport Board, and would be wholly unconnected with any general scheme. In fact, the Commission could take over haphazardly, between now and the scheme being put up, any particular undertaking, finance it out of the rest of the reserves of this great Commission, run it below cost, and drive out of business the road passenger man operating in that area. That would be entirely within the powers of the Commission. I think that is a position which ought to be guarded against. Whether it is on the goods or on the passenger side, we seek to see that the rather narrow limits of private operation should, at least, be safeguarded and able to go on without being subject to the unfair competition of a great State monopoly.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I beg to second the Amendment.
At the same time, in accordance with the Ruling which you have given, Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention the Amendment which stands in my name and those

of my hon. Friends relating to passenger services. Before proceeding to the subject matter of the Amendment which stands in my name, I wish to supplement very briefly the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) with regard to goods services. He referred to the 25-mile "cells," as they have been called on occasions since this Bill was introduced. There is a certain amount of confusion of thought on both sides of the House as to the exact attitude to competition. I believe that hon. Members opposite think that competition is a thing that can be dispensed with quite easily in all circumstances. Certainly they arc quite wrong when they think that we suggest that all competition is necessarily good at all times. We do not think so and, indeed, legislation of prewar Governments, now represented on the Opposition side of the House, has proved that conclusively. We say that there is such a thing as unnecessary and wasteful competition. In the Acts of 1930 and 1933 serious and, I consider, successful attempts were made to eliminate such wasteful and uneconomic competition and to ensure that there is competition which is beneficial. Within those 25-mile "cells" now to be created, there is no doubt that the competition will be wasteful and unnecessary. I would say that the provisions of this Bill in setting up those "cells" are not only killing but intended to kill.
I proceed to passenger services. In Clause 2 (2, c) the Commission will have power to acquire by agreement any passenger undertaking. Under Part II of the Bill the London Passenger Transport concerns will be taken over, and, under Part IV, area schemes may be made embracing passenger transport services by road. A considerable time will elapse before those schemes are brought into effect. That is beyond dispute. It was referred to earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary. Bearing in mind that a number of years will elapse, there will be a sort of interregnum before the area schemes are made effective, and we have to consider what is to happen meanwhile. One of the purposes of this Bill is to secure a co-ordinated system of transport. As matters stand at the moment, far from it being a properly coordinated and integrated system, so far as road passenger transport services are concerned, there will be, at least, a dual


system. There will be those vehicles licensed by the Traffic Commissioners, as they have been since the Act of 1930 came into force, and there will be the area schemes. Surely, it would be very much better if, instead of setting up a dual system in a Bill which is intended to coordinate, the Government had a unified and integrated system?
There is a simple process right at hand for the Government to achieve that, but they do not appear to wish it. That was made perfectly clear in Committee. The Government do not wish to use the Traffic Commissioners and to put the Commission under the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners, so that the careful co-ordination which the Traffic Commissioners have exercised over recent years can continue. In mentioning that, I remind hon. Members that the Traffic Commissioners sit in public, they sit locally, they hear all points of view, and they are able to achieve a great measure of co-ordination, not merely between one road passenger service and another, but even between rail services and road pas-senger services. The Traffic Commissioners are in the habit of getting hold of railway timetables. Surprising though it may seem to hon. Members opposite from the criticisms one sometimes hears them make of the present system, that is a fact.
However, as the Government are not prepared to make the fullest use of that system and are prepared during the period of interregnum to have this dual system, we considered it necessary to put down this Amendment to save the Government from the chaos which it appears to us they will be introducing. We therefore say that the Commission should not be allowed to operate services, except in accordance with a scheme made under Part IV and to operate the London passenger transport system, which is obvious, under Part II. We suggest to the House that if that precaution is taken there will be a continuance of the wellplanned and well-ordered system which has applied to road passenger transport for the last 15 years.

Mr. Ernest Davies: It seems to me that the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) would make absolute nonsense of this Bill. The Amendment to

restrict the Transport Commission to the operation of road haulage over long distance is quite impracticable. It would destroy the very purpose of this Bill. I say that for this reason. In the first place Clause 38 provides that the Transport Commission shall acquire road haulage undertakings, and it will acquire those undertakings as units. When it takes over those undertakings, it will take over both long-distance and short-distance services. It will acquire vehicles which are engaged both in long distance and in short distance work. If when a unit has been taken over it is said that the undertaking cannot continue to carry goods for a short distance, which it has been doing in the past, the Transport Commission can no longer operate that unit properly because the short-distance haulage and the long-distance haulage were operated together in the organisation, one working in with the other and the profits of the concern depending upon the two. But more important than that is the fact that if we take over a unit which is operating long and short distance, as the Transport Commission will be doing, and we acquire vehicles, there will be no vehicles available to continue to do the short distance work. If we are forbidden to do short-distance work, who will cater for the traders who still want their goods carried short distances? There are not the new vehicles available, people are not available to go into the business, and it will be impossible for the traders to be serviced in the way that they have been serviced in the past. This severance of the business which is suggested, not of the physical assets, but as regards the requirements of the trader, is impossible and, as I have said, unnecessary.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that he wishes to nationalise short-distance as well as long-distance road transport?

Mr. Davies: Certainly. The Transport Commission is taking over short distance to the extent that short distance is carried on by those undertakings which the Transport Commission acquires. That is laid down in Clause 38. At the same time if is taking over that short distance which is operated by the railway companies today, which includes Pickfords and Carter Paterson, and that part of Carter Paterson and Pickfords which is inter-related with railway traffic will have to continue. That is another


reason why this Amendment is not sensible, because the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the co-ordination of all forms of transport, and a successful transport system of this country must depend upon the co-ordination of road and rail traffic. If there is to be true co-ordination between road and rail traffic, then the Transport Commission has to be free to use the road transport to the extent that it desires to do so, and rail traffic to the extent to which it desires to do so. There will be certain distances which will emerge as time goes on in which it is more economic to use road transport, either to feed the railways or for the purpose of carrying the traffic without feeding the railways at all. If you restrict the carriage of goods to distances exceeding 25 miles, then you will not be able to work in your road traffic with your railway traffic in the way this Bill intends to provide.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, perhaps I did not make my question quite clear; does he, supported by his hon. Friend, desire to nationalise all short-distance transport? That is the issue.

Mr. Davies: Might I ask the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) to study the Bill? It lays down clearly the extent to which the Transport Commission takes over long distance and short distance. Clause 38 provides for the taking of long distance and short distance where both are operated by undertakings. Other Clauses provide for the taking over of railway undertakings which already engage in a certain amount of short distance. It is not provided in the Bill that undertakings operated within the short distance of 25 miles should be taken over automatically but, where the undertakings desire to be taken over, there are provisions in the Bill for it. It is laid down clearly in the Bill, it came out in the Committee upstairs, on which the hon. Gentleman sat, and it has been debated on the Floor of the House.
One point in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouth. He suggested that, in the case of long distance, the Transport Commission would be free to make what charges it liked for carriage, that there would be no competition and, therefore, it could put up its charges to whatever extent it liked, and if engaged on short distance, it could

charge unfair rates and enter into competition. I think the hon. Gentleman was overlooking the fact that the "C" licensee continues unrestricted under this Bill—

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Not thanks to you.

Mr. Davies: And as the "C" licensee continues unrestricted, there is that check on the operation of all long-distance traffic, that, if you charge more than a certain price for the carriage of goods, it would pay the trader to carry the goods himself. So there is that check on the charge which the Transport Commission will make and there is competition, and his argument as regards being able to charge high prices for long distance in order to undercut the short-distance haulier does not enter into it.
On the question of competition as between fair competition for private enterprise and unfair competition as is suggested, in effect, for nationalised undertakings, if this Amendment were carried there would be unfair competition for the Transport Commission because the Transport Commission would not have the advantage of the profitability of short. distance, but would be engaged only in long-distance traffic. It would, therefore, be at a disadvantage as regards competition with the short haulier. So I ask the hon. Member for Monmouth to think again about this Amendment; to think whether it is practicable, and should be carried out, or whether it is not designed to make nonsense of the Bill so that the Bill will not work.

10.15 p.m.

Sir A. Salter: I think the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has put before the House an extraordinary argument. He said that because the Commission takes over a particular undertaking, which has both long-distance and short-distance traffic, it must continue to run short-distance traffic. Do the Government intend that when this change takes place the particular present stratification of the transport system in this country should be perpetuated for ever? Is it not the intention to reorganise and rationalise the system, leaving to private enterprise what is most suitable to private enterprise and to public enterprise, what is most suitable to public enterprise? I thought that was the purpose. If it is the purpose, it is perfectly clear that the


problem to which the hon. Member refers can easily be dealt with.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely, the right hon. Member is aware that the vehicles are not allocated as between long-distance and short-distance traffic, but the same vehicles will be carrying certain goods on long distances, and certain goods on short distances?

Sir A. Salter: Of course they will. But, when the change takes place, the existing transport of the country is going to be put upon a rationalised basis with a re. arrangement between the kind of traffic most suitable for one form or another. For a long time I have thought that while there is a great difference between the two sides of the House in regard to much of this Bill it was common ground that the short-distance part of this traffic was better left to private enterprise. We may clear out of the dispute the question of collecting for rail for the Amendment deals with that. But, dealing with the rest, if it is the case that it is proper and right that the short-distance traffic should normally be left to private enterprise the purpose behind these Amendments is perfectly simple and reasonable. It is that where private enterprise is not legislated out of business, and thus automatically put out of business, it should not be later inevitably frozen out of business. But, that will be the effect unless we have a safeguard of this kind. Hon. Members ask if we do not believe in competition. Certainly we do, but in reasonable, fair and equal competition. Competition between a Dreadnought and a dinghy is neither useful, interesting, nor likely to last long; but that is really not an unfair analogy. Competition between this vast Transport Commission on the one hand, and a small road haulier on the other, is so unequal as to make it quite impossible for the smaller party if the first is bent on aggression.
I can hardly think the hon. Member was serious when he talked about the unfairness to the Transport Commission of the advantage which a small, modern, shortdistance haulier would have. Let hon. Members think of the situation on the other side. It is not only, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) said, that the Commission can put up the rates on the long-distance

traffic and use that income to subsidise competition on short-distance traffic. They can also draw upon the resources of higher rates on the railways, profits on hotels, profits in relation to the docks—profits upon anything in the whole sphere of their vast combined enterprise, all of which goes within one fund. It is completely impossible competition if the Transport Commission are out to kill the short-distance haulier. Can we have any assurance that they will not do that?
The hon. Member said that there is at least the protection of the competition of the freedom given to the "C" licence holder. That is no thanks to the hon. Member. He argued, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that any such concession as has subsequently been made by the Government would be fatal to the whole of this transport system. I agree that, to the exent to which that concession has been made, the Bill is better. But how inadequate that concession is as the sole protection against the kind of competitive pressure that the big Transport Commission could bring to bear upon the small haulier. It is obvious that, if they wished to do it, they could freeze out the small haulier altogether, and I have very little confidence indeed that they will not be tempted, and successfully tempted. to do so.

Mr. Gallacher: Why should they?

Sir A. Salter: I will answer the hon. Member. When we were discussing the question of "C" licences, the House will remember that the Parliamentary Secretary, rather giving away the Minister, who had said that all bona fide traders had no cause for alarm. He said that the Transport Commission could not afford to lose the cream of the traffic. If in the first days of the Bill, before it is law, those are the lines on which the Government are thinking, what is likely to be the temptation to the Transport Commission a little later when they see, as they will see, that purely from the point of view of their own finances, it will be very attractive to freeze out, to under-cut, to throw out of business, some of these small hauliers? It will be convenient and profitable for them to do so, and unless we have some safeguard, they will certainly be very likely to do so. Hon. Members also said, when we were talking about the prospective fate of the small hauliers of being squeezed out by a large concern,


"Is that not what private capitalism has done in the past?" Yes, there have been such instances; they have been the abuses of part of the capitalist system. We all know what happened in the early days of the railways. We know that the railways used their power to squeeze out the canals, not only in regard to that part of the business which, in view of the advent of the railways, had become less economical to the consumers, but also in respect of that part of the business which it would have been very much to the advantage of the country to maintain.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great difference? These capitalist companies were running the business for the profit of the few. The Transport Commission will be running the business in the interest of the many, and will not have the same desire or interest to indulge in unscrupulous conduct such as that to which he is referring.

Sir A. Salter: I do not think that that is an argument which need be carried very far. I will merely repeat the remark I made just now that when this Bill was having its Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Transport Commission could not afford to lose the cream of certain traffic in connection with which, under subsequent pressure, the Government have since been compelled to give a safeguard for private enterprise. It is undoubtedly true, as I have said, that here and there in the capitalist system there has been an abuse of a monopoly in the form of the use of overwhelming financial power to squeeze out a small operator. There are, however, two things to say about that. First, such occurrences have not been the normal characteristics of the capitalist system of the country; they have been occasional and exceptional abuses.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not Tillings one case of the growth of the road transport undertakings—with which we are concerned in these Amendments—at the expense of the small passenger road transport proprietor?

Sir A. Salter: Tillings is nothing like he complete monopoly which is contemplated under this Bill. They are not exempted from an extensive form of competition.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not a fact that Tillings and one other combine have about three-quarters of the road passenger transport business of this country?

Sir A. Salter: I have not the precise proportions in that particular case.

Mr. Ernest Davies: rose—

Sir A. Salter: I really must get on. was making two statements, neither of which can be answered. The first is that there is nothing in the present system comparable with the exemption from competition contemplated under this Bill, and the second that the use of an enormous and overwhelmingly stronger financial power to squeeze out small competition has been exceptional and not the rule. That is the first point I wanted to make on this matter. The other is that whenever cartels and monopolies and semi-monopolies have developed at least they have done so without the specific intention of Parliament and without the specific allocation of powers by Parliament to help them to do it. That is the difference. I quite agree that where a monopoly has developed and is used in that way either it is ripe for nationalisation or it calls for other action by Parliament. But when we have one of these alternatives and nationalisation is proposed what do hon. Members opposite say? They say, "That which we have for many years been denouncing as the abuse of capitalism—though it has only been a relatively small part of the capitalist system—we will now make our very model and pattern."

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: An Amendment similar to this was moved in Committee and, despite the illustrious names which were attached to it, I pointed out that its effect would be that the Transport Commission would not be able to collect or deliver any goods and carry them by rail. That was admitted on all sides as being perfectly plain, and I want to point out again that although it is probably not what the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) or any of his supporters intend, this would be the effect of the actual words now on the Order Paper. I submit that although it was not their intention the promoters of the Amendment have provided only for the collection of goods and not for their delivery. The essential words used here are:


except for traffic originating from, or destined for, carriage by rail.
Let us assume that the Commission collects goods from a trader, carries them to the railway station, and takes them by rail. It can do that. But it cannot deliver these goods by road, because the goods have not originated from the railway system; they originated somewhere else. Therefore I suggest that those who put forward this Amendment will have to revise it if they wish to make sure that the Commission will be able to carry out the ordinary business of transport, that is, collecting goods, carrying them by rail, and delivering them to the trader.
The other vital principle which is contained in this Amendment is even more interesting. We on the Government benches have been accused of taking by this Measure something which belongs to the private individual and handing it to the State without giving proper payment for it. All the arguments with regard to the payment for shares were based on that contention. But let us see what this Amendment would accomplish. Under this Bill, the State will purchase two valuable things.' One is the short-distance traffic which the railway companies carry at present; and we shall pay for that as a going concern. The other purchase is that referred to by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), the case in which we purchase a road transport concern which has both short-distance and long-distance traffic. That will be paid for by the British people as a going concern. What does the Opposition propose to do to this concern which now becomes the property of the British people under this Bill? In this Amendment the Opposition propose to take that which belongs to the nation, and hand it to private concerns for nothing. They would take the valuable consideration for which we pay under this Bill, and hand it over to private enterprise without receiving any payment for it. We on this side of the House deny that we have acted unfairly in any way, and assert that we are giving fair compensation; but the Opposition cannot deny that they propose here to commit the crime with which they have charged us, only in the opposite direction. The central purpose of this Amendment seems to be to take something which belongs to the nation and hand it over to private enterprise without any payment.

Mr, Renton: The hon. Member has thrown out something of a challenge, and I think it ought to be put on record that we completely deny his suggestion. The extremely tortuous argument which he is making would not bear examination. Even though there is not time to answer his arguments in detail, I think it ought to be put on record that he has completely misconstrued the argument put from this side of the House.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member is well aware that the usual plea in the places in which he is very often seen is "Not guilty." But that plea does not interest the jury at all. The evidence is weighed and considered by those who are charged with that duty. I think the evidence I have put forward tonight will be weighed very carefully by hon. Members who carry that responsibility. Now I say that to carry out this proposal made by the Opposition would be to cripple the Commission in its work of organising British transport. If one takes away from the Commission all the short-distance traffic that the railway companies are doing at the present time, one is committing a great crime against the British people. Far better that we should be honest and say that, if we are to do this, we should abandon the whole Bill. I suggest that this Amendment should go under the heading—and I have had to use this description before—of "wrecking Amendments."
The hon. Member for Monmouth has, however, made some progress between the Second Reading and the present stage of this Bill, because on the Second Reading he advocated a "free for all" system of transport. During that Debate, he said "Let everyone have a go." He was challenged, and leading Members of the Opposition were asked to give him support, but there was a grim silence all along the Opposition Front Bench on that occasion. I can only recall an almost inaudible "Hear, hear" from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). So much for the support of the Tory Party. However, the hon. Member has come some way from his "free for all" policy. He now proposes to place a restriction on the principal transport authority in this country, and to exclude the Commission from the carriage of short-distance traffic by road. The intention is only to cripple the functioning of this experiment which, I am quite confident will


nevertheless be a success so far as this country is concerned.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I suggest to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) that he should get together with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), because he understands the Bill without having read it. We are, of course, aware of the hon. Member for Eccles, who was with us for two months in Committee upstairs. I must say that he tried hard. But, if anybody wonders why we, on this side, have put down these two Amendments, their doubts would have been removed by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) who has done so much to clarify for us what is really behind the Government's mind on this subject. The point which I should like the hon. Member for Enfield to answer is whether he is in favour of short-distance road transport being treated in this way. I ask him to "come clean" and tell the House whether, in fact, he is in favour of it.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The question which I would ask the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) is, "Has he studied this Clause"? Does he suggest entire nationalisation? We nationalise a small section. When we nationalise long-distance undertakings we take over railways, which include short-distance road transport.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Member is again avoiding the point. It is clear from all his speeches during the Committee stage and in this House that he, in common with the hon. Member for West Fife is in favour of total nationalisation in this country. That, I suggest, is a terrible thing, but it is allowed in totalitarian countries. If the hon. Member wishes to put that forward, let him say so, and let the people of this country know the fact.

Sir A. Salter: May I suggest that the hon. Member really got his answer in the earlier remark of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) when he said that there are certain sections of short-distance haulage which are not automatic.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. I think I have been long enough here to know that no hon. Member can take the Floor unless someone gives way. I want to know how often one can speak on this Clause.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Further to that point of Order, which was not a point of Order—

Mr. McKinlay: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) is perfectly correct. It is not desirable for hon. Members to give way too frequently or for us to have too many interruptions.

Mr. McKinlay: Further to that point of Order. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) accused me of raising a point which was not a point of Order. I did raise a point of Order which has been supported by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think the hon. Member's observations were called for at all.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If I may conclude the few words I intend to say on this particular subject I would put it that hon. Members should realise that there is a considerable section behind the Government Front Bench who are in favour of the all-out nationalisation of transport in this country, both long-distance and short-distance. Let them "come clean" and be honest about it. That is the point I have been trying to make. The trouble is that the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) will not "come clean." It is clear that it is his intention to nationalise all short-distance transport.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of Order. Is the question before the House whether the hon. Member for Enfield will or will not "come clean," and if so, has it anything to do with the Amendment we are discussing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members are quite as well able to judge as I am.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think the House would prefer to consider the Bill which the Government are asking the House to discuss on its Report stage, in relation to the particular Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite. May I first relieve the mind of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), who seemed worried that in permitting the Commission to take over some short-distance work on the roads, we were exceeding the mandate which we received at the General Election— He seemed to be under the impression that


in our pamphlet "Let Us Face The Future" we limited ourselves to long-distance road haulage. That was the argument which he developed at some length. I want to tell him that he is quite wrong. We did not define the exact spheres of transport which we would be nationalising but contented ourselves with the general statement that unification of inland transport was desirable under public ownership. So the hon. Member need not worry about that.
10.45 p.m.
We are in this Bill giving the Commission certain functions and certain duties and their prime duty is to provide an efficient inland transport service which will be convenient, cheap, and effective for agriculture, industry and the public. And having given the Commission that duty under Clause 3 of the Bill, we find ourselves constantly faced with arguments from Members on the other side who seek to restrict and hamper and prevent the Commission carrying out those general duties which the Bill is placing upon them. This is one of these restrictive Amendments which, if it were carried, would make it very difficult—even impossible—to carry out the policy imposed by Parliament on the Commission. What would be the effect of the acceptance of the Amendments? The Commission would be unable to carry out any local deliveries in regard to haulage of short-distance road goods. It would be unable to do any collecting work or delivery work for goods which are to be carried on canals. I do not know what the mover and seconder of the Amendment would do with Carter Paterson when it comes over to the Commission. If the Amendment is carried, they would have to sell the whole concern, because the purpose of the promoters and supporters of the Amendment is that the Commission should divest itself of all services doing short-distance road work.

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the last words in my hon. Friend's Amendment? He will see that work in connection with servicing of railways is included. This is being done by Carter Paterson.

Mr. Strauss: Carter Paterson do a great deal of door-to-door delivery directly, both long-distance and short-distance. Therefore the Commission if this

Amendment were passed, would have to get rid of all or a large part of the present Carter Paterson organisation. Further the Commission would be in this situation, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies). The road haulage firms which would be taken over would consist almost entirely of firms which do long-distance and short-distance work. Very few do long-distance only; nearly all combine it with short distance activity. It would mean, in fact, that the Commission would have to sell to private enterprise a bit of each of these organisations which it would take over. They would have to split up each organisation, which would make it wholly inefficient in most cases, and sell a bit of it to somebody who might come along and want to run a short-distance haulage undertaking. I suggest that that would not be in the public interest. The Commission would be hampered in carrying out the work which Parliament is placing upon it because the undertakings which it would take over would be severed. What would happen would be that a great deal of the short-distance work these firms have been doing would not be done at all.
I cannot conceive how anyone can argue that it is desirable that the Commission, having acquired those firms which are predominantly doing long-distance work, should immediately proceed either to suspend their short-distance work or try to sell it. For those reasons I suggest it would be wholly contrary to the public interest if the Commission was restricted in the way suggested in the Amendment. I suggest that it would be contrary to the public interest if the second Amendment were incorporated in this Bill. The Commission has a duty to see that there is adequate road passenger as well as goods haulage services in this country and where there is no adequate road passenger service it is a duty imposed by Parliament to see there is such a service. It may be the case that before any general road passenger schemes are worked out and carried into effect it may be desirable to run a local road passenger service linking up stations with other transport services where there is no convenient link at the moment. It would be ridiculous if the Commission were prohibited from starting a service of that sort, which might not pay for the time being, where there is no existing service doing the work. Therefore, I say, we


must not in any way restrict the Commission in carrying out the general function which Parliament is imposing on it to see that there is an efficient transport service, both for passenger and goods traffic, whether the goods service is long distance or not.
I want to say a word about the fears which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), about unfair competition. It has been suggested that the Commission put out of business existing companies which are running haulage undertakings. It struck me that the right hon. Gentleman found it difficult to envisage that this great transport undertaking which we are setting up, will be totally different in spirit and intention from the ordinary great private enterprise firms which have been in the field. The main object of any private company whether in the road transport business or any other, is to make as good return to the shareholders as it can. That is what it exists for, and it is naturally trying all the time to drive out competitors in order to make greater profits. With a Commission of the sort envisaged in this Bill we have an entirely different situation, but hon. Members opposite seem to be unable to imagine any kind of undertaking other than the ordinary private capitalist one. I do beg hon. Members opposite to appreciate that it is possible for a great undertaking to be established whose object shall be, not private profit but public service.

Mr. Linstead: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will explain to the House why the Post Office has not reduced its charges but continues to pass on large sums every year?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot go into these wider questions in any detail. Perhaps I allowed the right hon. Member the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), to go a little further than I ought to have done and I am allowing the Minister to reply but the Debate must not be extended further.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: This body is to be established as a public service and its main purpose is, as stated in Clause 3, to bring about good transport services throughout the country and to integrate those services. Therefore I suggest in the

first place, that if it started out to try to drive the local haulier out of business— and I cannot understand why in the world it should want to do so—but, if, by any chance, it wanted to do so, it would be directly flouting the duties placed upon it by Parliament. That duty I say is to integrate the existing public services in the country and see that they are as efficient as possible and serve the public as' well as possible. It would be quite contrary to the direct instructions given to the Commission by Parliament if it proceeded, along the lines suggested by hon. Members. Any. Minister of Transport would inevitably give the Commission directions, if he suspectded for one moment that they were setting out on a line which was contrary to that imposed by Parliament.
There is another reason why it is exceedingly unlikely that the Commission could, even if they wanted to do so, carry out such a policy. The Commission will. have to carry out the charges, both in respect of passengers and goods, imposed by the charges schemes, which will be worked out first by the Commission and then by the Tribunal. They will not be free to make any charges they like, to drive out competitors. They will have to work in accordance with the charges schemes which the Tribunal considers to be fair and proper. The Commission would be unable to drive the small man out of business, even if they wanted to; if they did that, they would as I have pointed out be flouting the duty placed upon them by Parliament. If the Commission were to have imposed on them' the restriction suggested here, it would hamper severely the public transport services of this country, and would be wholly contrary to the public interest. The fear that this body may try to imitate the objectives of private enterprise in driving its competitors out of business to make greater profits is groundless. It cannot happen, because the Bill tells the Commission directly that it must not happen. Moreover, they will be prevented from doing so by any Minister of Transport, and by the charges schemes which it will have to work. We, in Parliament, are telling the Commission they have a duty to provide an integrated and efficient service for the people, for industry and for agriculture. It is ridiculous to try at the same time to impose restrictions which would make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out that duty.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The lowest common factor. in the three speeches we have had from the Government benches, has been that these Amendments seek to make 'nonsense of the Bill. That suggestion has run through the speeches of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), the lion. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and the Parliamentary Secretary. Let us consider what the Bill sets out to do. It sets out to nationalise long-distance transport, and it specially excepts two forms of transport, one being excluded traffics, and the other being transport under 25 miles. I do not think anyone on the other side will deny that the object of the Bill has been stated, time and again, to be the nationalisation of long-distance transport. When the hon. Member for Enfield sought to grasp the nettle, he said "Oh, yes, but the Bill also says that it is taking over the whole of the business included in the formula set out in the relevant parts of the Bill." But what is the formula designed to do? On what ground was it recommended, in our Debates in the Standing Committee? It was on the ground that it fairly gave a definition of what was long-distance road haulage transport. It is a reductio ad absurdum to say that because the formula does not work, you can say your Bill is no longer designed to be limited to long-distance road transport, and that the object is to take over short-distance road transport as well. That was the argument of the hon. Member for Enfield.
11.0 p.m.
Although I am not unaccustomed to legalistic argument, I have not heard anything to equal the sort of argument developed in excelsis, or in profundis, by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor). Traffic does not originate with the carrier at all; it originates with the consignor, who is a merchant or producer. This extension of our Amendment has been made not only with accurate intention, but with accurate wording to cover the point that was objected to when we moved a slightly more limited Amendment in Committee, namely, that it would not cover collection and delivery from the railhead. It is a poor argument to suggest that when we meet a point which has been put to us, we ought to squeeze into the word, "originate," a meaning which no reasonable person could possibly give it. The Parliamentary Secretary came down to the Pickford-Carter Paterson-

Hay's Wharf postwar carriage argument. Let us consider what that group do. Of their traffic, 73 per cent. deals with excluded traffics—liquids in bulk, furniture removals, the carriage of meat, and of abnormal indivisible loads.

Major Cecil Poole: Is it by bulk, or by weight?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to develop my argument. These are traffics which, by the design and intent of the Bill, it is intended to nationalise. Of the remaining 27 per cent., 22 per cent. are traffics which are under 25 miles—again the form of traffic which it is the intention to exclude from the operation of the Bill—and we remain with the 5 per cent. which would come within the purview of the Bill. I quite accept the point, and this is really the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. He did not mention the number, but he knows and I know that Pickfords have some 3,000 vehicles. The hon. Gentleman said, "You are not going to suppose for an instant that the Transport Commission are going to sell 95 per cent. of the 3,000 vehicles. Would not that be a terrible thing for this great State monopoly which I have described to you in such poetic language to have to break up its business and to have to sell its vehicles."
I did not notice that a single wither of the Parliamentary Secretary was wrung when he was describing all the innumerable transport businesses he was prepared to burst up and whose vehicles he was prepared to dispose of, when we were discussing the compensation Clauses. But, of course, when it comes to Pickfords it is a terrible business. He would not have the least difficulty on the terms of payment for vehicles at the rate that he suggested—new vehicle less a 20 per cent. depreciation at three years' purchase, which he so eloquently urged. There would be a queue of people ready to buy the business on those terms. There would not be the slightest difficulty in getting rid of it, and carrying out the plan—that ghostly spectre of a plan which runs through this Bill, for dividing road transport on lines which give the basis of proper co-ordination. That is, of course, the clear and logical consequence of this Amendment, and it would in that one place at any rate, change this Bill from being a hotch-potch of conflicting ideas


into a logical, clear course leading to some form of co-ordination of transport. For that reason, of course, it will not be looked at, but we might as well have its reasonable and logical facets put clearly before the House.
I turn to the other arguments which the hon. Gentleman put forward. If he will allow me to say so, he has dealt with great ability with every argument we have put forward and has deployed every argument which he could command in answer. Sometimes we have had different ideas as to the strength of his arguments, but that the hon. Gentleman has always endeavoured to apply them, I think we on this side fully admit and appreciate. Therefore I want to do the same myself by answering them. I want to deal for a moment with the question of the general attitude of the public corporation which he has put forward today. He has advanced the argument that the public corporation is to be totally different in spirit. That does demand some consideration, but the other great question—and we can never have regard to one aspect only of a public corporation or anything else— which is to be considered is that of efficiency. The Parliamentary Secretary has implied that the State monopoly is to be without the check of the customer being able to go elsewhere.
By the rejection of this Amendment the hon. Gentleman is strengthening that aspect. He is making it more difficult for any checks on efficiency to be in existence. We suggest that there are two motives. One is that we have to try to disguise inefficiency, and the other is that the State monopoly, from its very origin and from its method of working, is prey to one of the most sinister defects which we have seen in the 20th century, the lust for power and the determination to get a dominant and ever more dominant position. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may take these matters facetiously today. It is always easy for them to be facetious about anyone who suggests to them that they are riding roughshod over, and dealing harshly with, minorities, and restricting the right of those minorities because they themselves happen to be in a majority. But it is sometimes quite useful to look at these matters objectively and to consider that these positions have been reversed in the past and will be reversed again. I put it to hon. Members opposite who have approached this Bill

with all the emphasis on one aspect—that is the feather-bedding of the position of the railway unions—that they should remember this. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember this that road transport has been built up in such a way that the number of vehicles in this country has risen from 20,000 to 500,000 in 20 years.

Mr. Sparks: By sweated labour.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is a typical railway union remark.

Mr. Proctor: But it is true.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is a remark which is denied by everyone connected with the road transport industry, and by the legislation which that industry has had passed during the past 20 years. I ask hon Members opposite not to approach this in the easy way from the point of view of their own concerns, but to remember that this industry, which has grown in this way, will not be put down by unfair terms being fastened upon it in a House of Commons in which its interests happen to be in a temporary minority. The Government are dealing with something that arose from, and had its being in the healthy life and powers of the people of this country and no unfairness of this kind will check it.
11.15 p.m.
The other point which I want to make clear is with regard to the charges scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary said—and he must forgive our smiles when he said it— that if there were any unfair charges, they would be checked by a scheme. But who makes the scheme? The Commission, of course, but the Commission is concerned in the unfair charges. What happens when the scheme is made? It goes to the Tribunal. What happens if the scheme amended by the Tribunal is not liked? It goes back to the Minister, who can give a direction in order to see that the scheme does not offend any principle, which commends itself to him as being in the national interest. All we are asking in this Amendment is that those forms of traffic which were excluded from the purview of this Bill should be given a fair chance to operate. That is all we are asking, and when the answer is given to us, "Oh, but you will receive a guarantee of fairness by a tribunal which can only operate on schemes put forward by the Commission,


and then cannot operate outside the blinkers imposed by the Ministry," we on this side of the House must be forgiven if we do not attach very much importance to that.
The kernel of this Amendment comes to this, that we are asking that the Commission should not come into, broadly, two forms of transport of goods—first, the short distance, which is the descendant of the old horse carriers, and has always had many of the same qualities, and secondly, the very traffics that were excluded from the Bill. We say, so far as passenger transport is concerned, take the London traffic, make the schemes of which we have heard so much this afternoon, but do not—and why should you?—go outside these proposals today. For that reason, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for this Amendment when they get an opportunity.

Mr. Percy Morris: . May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to define in clearer terms what he meant by "a typical union remark"?

Did he mean by that remark that the railway unions have made no contribution to the present state of efficiency and progress of the railways?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P Morris) has put that question. What I am suggesting is that the railway unions, in considering this Bill, have approached it entirely from a railway angle, and have not been able, in spite, I am sure, of genuine efforts, to give an objective and correct view to the problems of the roads. I shall not withdraw that remark, because I am a frank as well as a fair controversialist, and that happens to be my opinion. I hope it will not be thought that I am depreciating or denigrating the work the railway unions have done as far as the railways are concerned. That has been wholly admirable, and the war years are a great testimony to that.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided; Ayes, 128; Noes, 313.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[11.19 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Glyn, Sir R
Nicholson, G.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nield, B. (Chester)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grant, Lady
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Gridley, Sir A.
Nutting, Anthony


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Poole, O. B S. (Oswestry)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Naughton, S. G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Beechman, N. A
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Birch, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bowen, R.
Hollis, M. C.
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr, Roland


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.
Hurd, A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'Id'n)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Channon, H.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cole, T. L
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Strauss, H G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. E
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Teeling, Willlam


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorneycroft. G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thorp, Lt..Col. R. A. F.


Digby, S. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ward, Hon. G. R


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Medlicott, F.
York, C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gage, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, W. J, (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Longden, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lyne, A. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAdam, W.


Alpass, J H
Ewart, R.
McEntee, V. La T


Attewell, H. C.
Fairhurst, F.
McGhee, H. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Farthing, W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Austin, H. Lewis
Field, Capt. W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W)


Bacon, Miss A
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKinlay, A. S.


Baird. J
Follick, M.
Maclean, N (Govan)


Balfour, A.
Fool, M. M.
McLeavy, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barstow, P. G.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barton, C.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Battley, J. R.
Gaitskell, H. T. N
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gallacher, W.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Benson, G.
Gibbins, J.
Marquand, H. A.


Berry, H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mathers, G.


Beswick, F.
Gilzean, A.
Medland, H. M.


Bing, G. H C
Gooch, E. G..
Mellish, R. J.


Binns, J
Goodrich, H. E.
Messer, F.


Blackburn, A. R
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H.
Grierson, E.
Monslow, W.


Bottomley, A. G
Griffiths, D. (Bother Valley)
Moody, A S.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llonelly)
Morgan, Dr H. B.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morley, R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, Lt-Col. H. (Sheffield C.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gunter, R. J
Morris, P. (Swansea. W.)


Bramall, E. A.
Guy, W H.
Moyle, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Murray, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, W. G.
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Hardman, D. R
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J (Derby)


Buchanan, G.
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Burden, T. W
Harrison, J.
O'Brien, T


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oldfield, W. H


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.


Callaghan, James
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Carmichael, James
Hewitson, Capt M.
Palmer, A. M. F


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R
Pargiter, G. A.


Chetwynd, G. R
Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)


Cocks, F. S.
House, G.
Paton, J (Norwich)


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J.
Pearson, A



Collick, P.
Hubbard, T.
Pearl, Capt. T. F.


Collindridge, F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. E


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Colman, Miss G. M
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Comyns, Dr. L
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rushotme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Price, M. Philips


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Irving, W. J.
Pritt, D. N.


Corlett, Dr, J.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Cove, W. G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J


Crawley, A.
Jager, G. (Winchester)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Crossman, R. H. S
Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Randall, H E


Daggar, G.
John, W
Ranger, J.


Daines, P.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reeves J


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J H. (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ridealgh, Mrs M


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Robens, A


Deer, G.
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C.
Roberts. Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Delargy, H. J.
Key, C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Diamond, J.
King, E. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dobbie, W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lang, G.
Scollan, T


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lavers, S.
Scott-Elliot, W


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, F. (Hulme).
Shackleton, E. A A.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lee, Miss J (Cannook)
Sharp, Granville


Dye, S.
Leonard, W
Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Levy, B. W.
Shurmer, P.


Edelman, M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdinglon)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Skeffington, A. M.







Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Skinnard, F W.
Thurtle, E.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tiffany, S.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Smith, S H. (Hull, S.W.)
Timmons, J.
Wilkes, L.


Solley, L. J
Tolley, L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Sparks, J. A.
Usborne, Henry
Williams, D. J. (Heath)


Stamford, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)



Stephen, C.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Strachey, J.
Walkden, E.
Williamson, T.


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Walker, C. H.
Willis, E.


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Swingler, S.
Wallace, H W. (Watthamstow, E.)
Wise, Major F. J


Sylvester, G. O.
Warbey, W. N
Woodburn, A.


Symonds, A. L.
Watkins, T E.
Wyatt, W.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Watson, W. M.
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)
Weitzman, D.



Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, P. L (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, W T. (Walsall)
Mr. Michael Stewart and


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
West, D. G.
Mr. Simmons


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out "and," and to insert:
whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission, so, however, that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them.
(d).
This point was raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) in Committee. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that the Commission would not establish warehouses and storage accommodation outside the natural requirements of their business undertakings so as to enter into wholesale competition. This Amendment gives that assurance and places that limitation on the Commission.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I thank the Minister for the insertion of these words. I think the Amendment will relieve the anxiety of a number of people who felt the Commission might enter into a number of activities quite disconnected with transport.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Commission shall not have power to carry passengers by road in a hackney carriage adapted to carry less than eight passengers and used in plying or standing for hire in a street.
The right hon. Gentleman has accepted a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and I hope he will receive this Amendment in the same frame of mind. It is required

to give effect to a statement which the Minister made in Standing Committee, on 19th February, that taxicabs are not being brought within the provisions of the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to qualify the wide general power in Clause 2 (I a). The words in the Amendment, are, I am advised, the most suitable for the purpose and follow the Road Traffic Act of 1930. I very much hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept it. It might perhaps be convenient for the Committee, if the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) in page 5, line 3, which covers the same point, were also discussed.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: No.

Mr. Poole: I thought it covered the same point. The only object of my Amendment is to give effect to the Minister's statement.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. 0. Poole) is quite right. I did indicate that if such an Amendment were moved, it would be sympathetically considered and I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(g) to enter into and carry out agreements with any person carrying on business as a carrier of passengers or goods outside Great Britain providing for the carriage of passengers or goods by or on behalf of the Commission and that other person under one contract or at a through charge or in the same vehicles or containers, whether belonging to the Commission or not.


The railway companies have a practice of booking through carriage rates from this country to various places on the Continent, and this Amendment enables the Commission to have a similar power and authority.

Mr. Maclay: The only comment I would make is that I think this is a very useful Amendment and I congratulate the Minister on putting such a fair Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 15, leave out "(d) and (e)," and insert "(e) and (f)."

In page 4, In line 23, leave out "or (c)," and insert "(c) or (d)."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Mr. Digby: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section the Commission shall not run contract carriages or motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers for hire or reward.
This Amendment is similar to that which has just been accepted by the Minister, with this exception that, as well as vehicles which are covered by the definition of taxicabs, contract carriages are included. In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary told us it was not intended to include the operation of contract carriages within the functions of the Commission. That statement was made on 23rd April, at col. 1057. Furthermore the Minister at the seventh Sitting of the Committee told us he did' not intend to include taxicabs and I gather that this point has also been covered in letters from the Minister to the Passenger Vehicle Operators Association. If that is the case, I cannot see why the Minister should not accept this Amendment. If there is no intention that the Commission should in any circumstances operate either taxicabs or contract carriages, it is clearly unnecessary for them to have powers to do so under the Bill. Therefore I hope the Minister will agree to this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think there must be some misunderstanding. I never said in Committee, as far as I remember, and I never intended to convey to the Committee that in no circumstances would the Commission be able to run contract carriages. If I did say so, it must have been in some other connection. It was not in my mind at the time that there should be

any prohibition of this sort. May I suggest to the House that it is desirable that the Commission should have powers in certain circumstances to run such vehicles. My right hon. Friend has accepted an Amendment which would prohibit the Commission from running taxis. But it may be very desirable in connection with railway or hotel work, to run small cars. For instance, in London, the Commission may want to run a regular service of small vehicles between the various stations. That would not be a service of taxicabs, but of—
motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers for hire or reward.
It may be desirable, in connection with the hotel work of the Commission, that vehicles should be run, contract carriages or otherwise, to take passengers to and from the station, or, in helping the tourist trade, from a hotel to a place of historic interest in the neighbourhood. I suggest that it would be unwise, if we want to enable the Commission to function fully and in the best public interest, particularly in regard to the hotel section, to impose a ban of this sort. It is not our intention that the Commission should set up hire-service stations all over the country, and carry on, in the ordinary sense, the business of running hire vehicles for private people. We do not want to do anything of that kind, and the Commission would not want to do that. At the same time we do not think it is wise to prohibit the Commission from running such vehicles as I indicated. It might seriously interfere with the hotel section of the Commission's work.

Mr. Digby: Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain the words he used at the 23rd Sitting of the Committee, because he was then quite definite that contract carriages were to be left out of the Bill?

Mr. Strauss: I think I was referring there to a definition. If my memory serves me aright, I think I said that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Commission running contract carriages if they desired. I am pretty certain about that, because a question was asked whether they would be in competition with other undertakings, and I said, "Inevitably."

Mr. Oliver Poole: I think there is some misunderstanding in regard to this


Amendment. There is no doubt about what the Parliamentary Secretary stated although I cannot give the quotation in reply to certain questions which arose, when the whole question of contract carriages was discussed. The object of this Amendment is merely to give effect to the statement which the Minister made that taxicabs would not be included. I understand that that was the whole point of the letter which was written to the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association. If he will look into this matter again, in view of the misunderstanding, and give that assurance, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Strauss: If there is some misunderstanding, we shall certainly look into the matter again, especially if we find there is justification for the suggestion that there is something wrong, but we are clear as to our intentions.

Mr. Digby: In view of the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(General duty of the Commission.)

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at the end, to insert "with due regard to safety of operation."
We had a very long discussion in Committee on this matter. At times it became, I think, rather confused. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen tried to persuade me to insert the word "safe" and I took the view on that occasion—and further examination of the problem has confirmed my judgment—that it would be a very unwise thing to do. The railway companies of this country have always approached this problem of the safety of their passengers with a great sense of responsibility, and I think one could emphasise the fact that the Commission would not only carry on the tradition but, as far as possible, desire to improve on it. Further, in the Ministry of Transport, there is an inspection department which is responsible for promoting, in every way, the safety of the travelling public. Nevertheless, taking these matters into consideration, it occurred to me that I could meet the general sense of the discussion in Committee by inserting these words.

I should like to read the Subsection as it will be with these words inserted:
It shall be the general duty of the Commission so to exercise their powers under this Act as to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly integrated systems of public inland transport and port facilities within Great Britain for passengers and goods, with due regard to safety of operation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of my hon. Friends for introducing this Amendment. We did, in fact, devote a whole morning in Committee to discussing those words or something approximating to them. I am particularly pleased to see the Solicitor-General in his place, because he spent a long time explaining that the introduction of those words would bring the whole legal system of this country into utter confusion. We are glad, however, to see that these legal difficulties have been resolved and that the words are now included.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I suppose these words are all right, but I do not know what the word "operation" means. I should have thought that "with due regard to safety" would have been suitable or "with due regard to the safety of the public" but why do you want "with due regard to safety of operation"? It leaves me completely in the dark.

Mr. Assheton: We are grateful to the Minister for what he has done. I hope the anxieties of my hon. and learned Friend behind me have not much in them, because after the great length of time we devoted to this matter in Committee, it is a solace to us to realise, that the Government, through the Commission, do intend at any rate to operate the railways of this country as safely as they have been operated under private enterprise.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 5, line i6, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where the Commission are for the time being providing regular goods transport services of different kinds available between the same points, it shall be their duty to allow any person desiring transport for his goods between those points freedom to choose such of the services so provided as he considers most suitable to his needs:
Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall be construed as—



(a) imposing on the Commission any obligation as to the provision or continued provision (either at all or to any particular extent) of any, or of any particular form of, goods transport service between any particular points; or
(b) preventing the Commission from making charges which differ according to the requirements made as respects the kinds of goods transport services which are to be used."


This, again, covers a very lengthy discussion which we had in Committee on the right of the trader to choose the service of transport which he desired. In this Amendment I make the position perfectly clear, but it is desirable to put in the reservation that while the trader will have the opportunity to choose his service within the services provided by the Commission, it does not give him a right to the continuance of any service, the enlargement of any service, or the continuance of any service at the same rate.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While we thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing any words into the Bill aimed at continuing the freedom of choice of transport which has so far existed under private enterprise, I believe that the words of the Amendment do little more than pay lip service to that freedom. The new Subsection says in so many words that freedom of choice for the user will exist but the Commission can cut off any service they like at any moment, so that there will not be any choice at all. Alternatively, it says that if the Commission wish to dissuade any particular form of traffic from going to any particular form of transport, they can put up the price as high as they like, so that choice will no longer be available. Our view remains that little freedom of choice will be left to the user of transport.

Mr. Mitchison: Both those conditions apply at present. It is now open to private enterprise to put up charges, or to withdraw a service. What is being done here is to preserve, for the merchant, the liberty he has in that respect.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Commission, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before

any court or tribunal to which they would not otherwise be subject.
This Amendment relates to one already accepted to line 8. It was pointed out in Committee that there was some doubt about the measure of liability of the Cornmission, in respect of road transport accidents. The Amendment seeks to ensure that their liability shall be the same with the introduction of the words of the 'earlier Amendment, as it would be without them.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I hope that the acting Leader of the House will note that the last batch of Amendments resulted from our deliberations in Committee, and, that being so, that he will never again accuse us of wasting time.

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I ask the Solicitor-General if, without these words, people would be at liberty to drive dangerously?

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission.)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out "so, however, that he," and to insert:
and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions:
Provided that the Minister.
This is the first of a series of Amendments designed to meet a point raised in Committee by hon. Members opposite, who pointed out that there was a certain ambiguity in the phrasing which appeared in several parts of the Bill saying that the Minister could give instructions to the Commission. Although those instructions were of a specific nature, the words were set in that form so as to make it perfectly clear that the Minister had power to give instructions in that respect and that the matter was not one of national interest but of specific interest—geographically or something of that kind. We promised to look into the point raised by hon. Members that these words, which appear in many places in the Bill, might be read in two ways, and we realised that they had read them in the wrong sense. In order to avoid any doubt here and in the other places in the Bill to which I have referred, we have redrafted the wording so that the situation is perfectly clear and can no longer be read in two ways.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(The Executives.)

Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "provided by order," and to insert:
determined by the Commission with the approval.
In case anyone should be in doubt as to the stage we have reached, I would point out that we have now come to Clause 5 of the Bill which deals with the important question of the Executives. As the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary—and, I think, a good many other hon. Members of the House—are aware, this is a very important matter and is not one in which there is any party conflict so far as I am aware. It is purely a question of trying to make up our minds what is the best way of setting up Executives if they have to be set up. Under the Clause as drafted the number and the names of the Executives are to be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister. The Clause then goes on to say that there shall be;
Executives known respectively as the Railway Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and the London Transport Executive and, as from the appointed day, an Executive known as the Hotels Executive.
The point I want to make is that it would be much better to allow the Commission which the Minister is to set up to do the planning and look after the policy of transport, to have a chance of deciding what Executives they want to establish. If the Commission are to work as a commercial concern and as a business undertaking, it does seem to me reasonable that they should have control of their own agencies and sub-agencies. The Minister explained on the Committee stage—I hope I am putting his point correctly and that he will inform me if I am not—that he preferred to have the appointment of these Executives in his own hands because he suggested that if that was the case they would be directly responsible to Parliament and that he would therefore be in -a position to answer to Parliament for their actions. I suggest that there is nothing in that point at all. Being responsible to this House for the Commission the Minister is, of course, also responsible for the Executives. I would have thought that the question who appoints the Executives does not affect that question at all. What we want to do is 'to place the Commission in a position of responsibility.
12 m.
I should like to ask what would be the effect on the prestige, influence and effectiveness of the Commission if they are not allowed to make these appointments. Does the Minister think that he will find it so easy to get good men to take on the jobs of being chairman and members of this Commission if their powers are to be so limited as they will be under the Clause as drafted? I do not know what means the Commission will have when it is set up. I do not know whether hon. Members in the back row on the, Government side of the House are interested in this Bill or not, but possibly they will allow the rest of us to discuss it without being interrupted by their conversation. It is one of the most important of the Bill with which we are now dealing, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who has given his attention to this Bill from time to time, will, I hope, give his attention to this matter.
I suggest that there is great doubt whether there ought to be a Docks and Waterways Executive. What is to happen to the docks? I understand that when the appointed day is reached the Minister will automatically find himself in charge of the railways' docks, because they belong to the railways, but there are other docks which are owned by local organisations and it is doubtful whether the Commission needs a Docks Executive at all. It would be wiser if it were left to the Commission to consider this matter for a little bit before the members make up their minds. The Minister of Transport expects that this Bill will become law by July or August. I do not know whether it will or not, but surely it would be wiser to let the Commission consider these matters for a little and then make up their minds how they are going to deal with this business.
There is one other point which I should like to raise. It is not desirable for a Government to have more patronage than is necessary. They have not only the power of appointment of the Commission, but the power of appointment of all the Executives, which extends the range of Government patronage very much indeed, beyond what, in my view and that of my hon. Friends on this side, is desirable. The Minister may take a different view, but the Amendment which I propose will leave the Commission free to determine


with the approval of the Minister the number of Executives.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: According to Subsection (4) of this Clause, the Executives are to be the agents of the Commission in the exercise of such functions as the Commission shall delegate to them. If they are the Commission's agents, why should not the Commission have the initiative with regard to their number and their names? In Clause 4, for example, provision is made for the Minister, after consultation with the Commission, to do certain things, and then it is laid down that the Commission shall act on certain lines which will be settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister. It is apparently vital that in the number and the names of the Executives the Minister shall have a say, but there is no provision for consultation. We are entitled to ask why should that be so? Apparently the Socialist Government are prepared to create these huge public corporations to carry out these functions and at the same time they are scared stiff of them.
We say that if the Government are going to destroy enterprise and initiative in this way by setting up a Commission to carry out these various transport functions, we should at least try to save something from the wreck and give the Commission which are to do the job some independence, some initiative, some chance of being master in their own house, and in that way give them the second best, that is, some chance of feeling that they are responsible for carrying out their job. It would appear that the Government are frightened of the Commission and are determined to hedge them round with all sorts of restrictions and regulations, and are quite unwilling to give them independence in any real sense of the term. We are entitled to know why they do that, and to submit that the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend is a substantial improvement to a very bad Bill.

Mr. Maclay: The reasons which have been put forward in support of this Amendment are strictly relevant, and I feel certain that it will have the support of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and other Scottish Members. It has been one of the unfortunate things about the discussion of this Bill that the Scottish aspect of the Executives has not

been fully discussed. I was completely puzzled in Committee as to why that was not possible, but one must abide by the Rulings of the Chair, and the important Amendments which many of us wished to move, and which would have been supported by all Scottish Members, were not discussed. I cannot go into this matter in great detail now, but I support this Amendment because I have every hope that if the Commission were left the responsibility for deciding the number of Executives, it might be prepared to consider seriously the question of having a Scottish Executive. The Minister appears to be adamant on that matter, but I trust that the hon. Member for West Fife, who is well known for his support of Scottish rights, will support the Amendment.

Mr. Nield: In supporting this Amendment, I would refer the House to Subsection (1) of this Clause, in which it is indicated that the task of these Executives is to assist the Commission. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has pointed out, under Subsection (4) another of their tasks too is to be the agents of the Commission. If one goes to the Second Schedule, which is mentioned in Subsection (2), one finds that the personnel of the Executives are remunerated by the Commission. In those circumstances, it would seem very sensible that it should be the Commission which decides the number of Executives. I support very strongly what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) about the undesirability of extending patronage in this manner.

Mr. Gallacher: If there were the slightest possibility that, through this Amendment, there would be an independent Executive for Scottish transport, I would support it fully, but this Amendment could never, as the Bill stands, provide for any such thing. It simply means that the power would be taken out of the hands of the Minister and placed in the hands of the Commission to provide the Executives. There would be no possibility by this Amendment of getting an independent Scottish transport board. Therefore, J shall not support it.

Mr. Maclay: Is it not clear to the hon. Member that the Bill says quite clearly that
The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister …


and that the Amendment seeks to change that from "provided by order of the Minister" to "determined by the Commission"? It would then be in order for the Commission to do it.

Mr. Burden: I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) fell so easily to that appeal to his nationalist sentiment. May I recall to his mind a little bit of history in regard to the original railway grouping? Under the Railways Act of 1921 it was proposed, in the first instance—and I have some knowledge of the circumstances—that Scotland should form a union of its own for its railways. Never was there such a howl of indignation as that which came from the Scottish railway managers at that time. They had to be appeased by being grouped with the railways of England I only rose to say how sorry I was to see how easily the hon. Member for West Fife fell.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see what Scotland has to do with this Amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, you have made that point. It emphasises that the matter we are now considering has nothing to do with the numbers or type of the Executives. This is just a simple, clear division of opinion on who ought to be responsible, in the first place, for the actual appointment of the Executives. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) quite accurately described the statement I made during the Committee. What I emphasised was that either the Executives were to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Commission, or the Commission was to appoint the Executives after consultation with the Minister. I took the view that if the position was reversed, as this Amendment proposes to do, the Commission would be under the obligation to consult the Minister and discuss the appointments with him. It would be a most undesirable state of affairs if the Commission and the Minister disagreed on appointments of that character. That is the first point.
Secondly, if the Commission makes the appointments—I would like the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Assheton: I was not inattentive. I was merely observing to my hon. Friend

that exactly the same would apply under the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: That is where I disagree. The fact that the Minister appoints the Executives makes it clear that Parliament can address Questions to the Minister on particular appointments, and that avenue is generally a public safeguard in matters of this character.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: If that obtains here, why does the Minister of Fuel and Power refuse resolutely to give information to the House about the appointment of members of various boards?

Mr. Barnes: I do not intend to be drawn from this Amendment to discuss other proposals. They should be discussed on their merits. If the hon. Member disagrees and questions any procedure of that character, he is strengthening the case I am now submitting against this Amendment; because my contention is that the responsibility should be fastened fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister to make these appointments, in view of the importance of bodies of this description, the size of the capital invested, and of the fact that the public and every interest in the country is affected by transport. There is everything to be said in favour of the responsibility resting fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister. If it does so in this case, it will enable Members of the House to put direct questions to the Minister on the appointment of members of the executive.
12.15 a.m.
If the position were reversed, as is proposed by the Amendment, then that opportunity would be obscured because the Minister might easily say that this is a decision which rests on the Commission. In matters of this character there should be a definite responsibility, clearly defined in the Bill. It should not be possible in appointments of this importance for there to be possible allegations of patronage and, if hon. Members consider that the principle of patronage is involved, there is still greater need for the matter to be subject to public ventilation. The Minister, when an appointment is made which arouses feeling in Parliament, can make a check.
The right hon. Member for the City of London said he did not see the need for


a Docks Executive. I see every need for it. Immediately the railways are vested in the Commission, the railway docks must be severed from the Railways Executive, and passed to the Docks Executive. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is meant by 'immediately'?"] Immediately in the sense that they must be established under the new regime as soon as the Bill becomes operative. The railway docks are representative of about 25 per cent. of the port trade of this country. The canals and inland waterways will pass to the Docks Executive, and the Commission will need to group docks under the various schemes made from time to time. Although the schemes would permit the creation of a special body to administer any port, or group of ports, they would have to subscribe to the general co-ordination of all the ports of this country. I suggest that the statement that there is no need for this Executive does not strengthen the argument, and, despite the long discussion in Committee, I am entirely convinced that the procedure under the Bill is the wisest.

Mr. Assheton: May I make clear one point? I did not say that there should not be a Docks Executive. What I said was that the Commission was the right body to determine whether or not there should be one.

Mr. H. Strauss: Are not the merits of the rival proposals dependent on what the Minister desires to be the status of the Commission? If the Executives were to be the agents of the Minister there would be everything in favour of his appointing them. But the extraordinary proposal in the Bill is that he appoints them, while they are to be the agents of the Commission. A body, to have any independence in the eyes of the public, should be able to appoint its own servants and agents. Really, the only effect of the Minister's insistence on the provisions of the Bill as they stand, will be that the Commission will be held to be less responsible for the acts of these Executives, since the Commission will be able to defend itself for any folly which may be committed by the Executives by saying. "We never appointed these people, and we have, therefore, no responsibility for them." While I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's insistence on his responsibility for the appointment of these Executives, I submit that it is pure con-

fusion for him both to insist on that, and also to insist that they shall be the agents of some other body.

Sir William Darling: This is a most extraordinary Clause because I search in vain, and I have a not inconsiderable experience of business, to find a similar arrangement elsewhere. I do not know of any great business of any size, and there are a great many, which would have this method of engaging and appointing their staff. I do not know of any president of any great company who is ready to number and name the executives who are to discharge his responsibilities. I will take it further. If this practice were proposed in any of the great trade unions it would be laughed out of court. Is it conceivable that the elected president of a great trade union would be ready to name and number his executives? That would be an incredible and an impossible position.
I submit that this is a graver matter than it appears in the Minister's statement. He has to justify an organisation of the most intricate character and the most widespread character this country has ever seen. He has to justify an organisation which contains a Railway Executive, Docks and Inland Waterways Executive—and that includes locks and other waterways—Road Transport Executive, Road Haulage and London Transport Executive and, from the appointed day, Hotel Executive. I voted against the National Insurance Bill and fell into a certain amount of odium for my action. I was one of two hon. Members who voted against it. It is a relevant point because I was not against universal national insurance, but I knew that one could not set up an organisation of that character in the short period of 18 months. The postbags of hon. Members will bear out what I am saying, that we are finding it impossible to set up machinery for such an extensive piece of business such as universal national insurance
This important Commission has got to chop and change about at every stage at every whim and behest of Parliament. That seems to me to be placing the transport of our country in an impossible position. I should be surprised to learn that any man of business experience, no matter what temptations or inducements were offered to him, would accept that. I would not like to be in the position of the


Minister who has to answer for things in this House. The Minister has to be prepared to answer questions from me about a railway porter at Thankerton, or be prepared to explain why one of MacBrayne's steamers—

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member is quite wrong when he takes it as far as the staff. It is members of the Executive I referred to and quoted in my remarks.

Sir W. Darling: I agree that the Minister is strictly correct in his interpretation, but I would point out the position if I brought before his notice the case of an employee of the transport system who, in my well-founded opinion, had failed to get justice from his Executive in the hotels—and the hotels are not so easily run, as the right hon. Gentleman may learn from some hon. Members sitting behind him. Mr. Piazza may well come to him in place of one of the hon. Members sitting behind him and complain that he has been ill treated in the North British Station Hotel. None the less, we are setting up the largest business organisation this country has ever contemplated. We have a comparative failure in the system of national insurance which has caused pain, anxiety, annoyance and irritation. This is a very much larger organisation, and I beg the Minister to reconsider the question.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The rejection by the right hon. Gentleman of our Amendment leaves his original words in the Bill. They are not very certain words. It says "the number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided," and then it goes on to say "by order." By whose order? By Order in Council? There is nothing in Clause 4 to give the Minister power to make Orders in Council. We must be able to ask Questions about which members must be appointed. It would be much better to have members appointed by the Minister so that there should be an opportunity of Questions in this House about it. The Questions will only be with reference to appointments by the Minister in the first place. My right hon. Friends have pointed out that in the rest of this Clause the Executives become subordinate to the Commission in a number of aspects. The Minister will be asked about these much more than about the appointments in the first place, and the

Minister is going to do what the Minister of Fuel and Power does, take cover behind the Commission and refuse to answer questions about the Executives. It is quite clear that that is his intention. He should look at this again and see if it would not be proper to introduce in another place words to meet the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Barnes: In reply to the noble Lord, the words "by order" apply to a Ministerial order.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: One point we all want to get clear. Although the Minister made certain signs which seemed perfectly clear to me, they are not included in the report of these proceedings. Is it his intention to be answerable to this House for the appointment and work of the Executives? That is what we want to get clear.

Mr. Barnes: The purpose of the Amendment was to provide for appointment of Executives and not for the general work of administration of the Executives.

Mr. Linstead: A further question on that point. I understand the Minister's argument was that if he were to appoint the Executives we could ask Questions about their appointment. The corollary was that if the Commission appointed the Executives, we would not be able to ask Questions about their appointment. That seems to me to raise the very important question as to how far, through the Minister, the actions of the Commission can be questioned. Can the Minister explain why it should be that if the Commission appointed the Executives this House could not ask him questions about their appointment?

Mr. Barnes: Merely from the standpoint of Parliamentary experience, as each stage is removed from Ministerial decision, it appears to me that the question becomes more shrouded in doubt as to how far a Minister is responsible for the acts of the body he has appointed. That being the case, it occurred to me—and this matter was given very full consideration —that, on balance, in view of the importance of the Executives and the public interest likely to be shown in appointments of that description, it is for the Minister to accept responsibility.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Bracken: I had some experience in this House for many years in defending the B.B.C. I had no responsibility whatever for the appointments to the executive, and I told Parliament from time to time that it was a matter for the B.B.C. But the Minister here is appointing the Executive and he tells us that Parliament will have control over the Executive merely because he gives his Ministerial approval to some names. What we want to know more clearly is, that having appointed these Executives, and taken the responsibility for their appointment, it surely is for the Minister to inform the House, if it questions him, about the doings of these Executives, otherwise his argument is nonsense. It is no use coming to the House and saying this is a very democratic process if the Minister is going to announce that Lord Citrine or Sir Ben Smith has been transferred from one board to another, and it is all over. What we want to know is how Sir Ben Smith or Lord Citrine is going to function. I ask the House, and particularly Members of the Government side, to take note that I had the harrowing experience of having to defend an executive I had not appointed. I want the Minister to explain himself a little more adequately. Does he really think that by coming to the House and saying, "I have appointed Mr. Jones an executive" he has fulfilled his responsibility, and does he not think that a corollary of his appointment is to allow the House to ask about the doings of these Executives which are running the most important business of this country, which is transport?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has exhausted his right to reply.

Mr. Bracken: There is the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: May I press this a little further? I regard this as of considerable importance and I think the Minister would share this view. As I understood the argument, it was this: He said he was going to take responsibility for appointing these Executives, because it would enable the House of Commons to exercise its democratic functions. He devoted a considerable proportion of his remarks to that theme. Surely, if the only thing the House is going to learn is just

that some name is announced and from that moment onwards the veil is drawn over the whole proceedings and no further questions can be asked—I suppose even as to the salary being paid, or certainly as to what action he is taking—it seems to me we are going through the most incredible procedure in attaining an object which is hardly worth while. If the name of the gentleman is all I am to be given, I would beg the Minister not to go to the trouble to practise this farce in the House of Commons. Let him hand over honestly to the Commission and let them get on with it, but if he is going to shelter behind the Commission, let him say so now.

Mr. Barnes: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I have no desire to avoid the issue at all. I was under the impression that I had stated the position clearly more than once, and I have no desire to hide from any interrogation from the other side. The argument is now, apparently, that if the Minister claims the right of appointing the Executives, it carries with it the purpose of enabling Parliament to subject that decision to examination to satisfy itself that it is a right and proper appointment; and it follows, of necessity, that Parliament has the right to discuss every administrative act of the Executives. That was the point. If that can be substantiated, and hon. Members opposite do not dispute the fact that the Minister should appoint the Commission, we can then proceed to argue that the Minister, having appointed the Commission and the Commission the Executives, they then become the agents of the Commission. The same argument applies, and it would still follow that Members would have a right to question every administrative act of the Commission. In logic, we should therefore get to the same position. By that process we carry the issue to an absurdity. There is a clear difference in process here, but it is limited to this. If the Commission appoint the Executives, the Minister is only responsible for appointing the Commission, and only the names and salaries and the capacity of the Commission is then subject to interrogation. If it is desired to take it further, it means, the Minister having appointed the Commission, every subsequent act of the Commission is subject to Parliamentary interrogation.

Mr. Bracken: In my judgment, if Parliament decides to nationalise the transport of this country, the Minister should be responsible for both his Commission and the Executives.

Mr. H. Strauss: Does the Minister not think that it is desirable that somebody—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I think I am in Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may only ask a question.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister has finished. He has sat down.

Mr. H. Strauss: When Mr. Speaker tells me that I am wrong I shall sit down, but I will not take my orders from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). The point I was trying to make is this: Does not the Minister think it is desirable that someone should be responsible for the acts of these Executives? Once they are appointed, the Minister says that he is not responsible, but the Commission is not responsible either. Will the Minister say who is responsible in these circumstances?

Sir John Mellor: It seems that the House is to be in a very weak position under this provision, and will be in a great deal weaker position than under the Railway Control Agreement, because up to now the House has had adequate opportunities of questioning the Minister on matters of railway administration. It now appears that under nationalisation we shall have something far less. This is a most significant and serious change. I assumed that under nationalisation the House would have more opportunities of criticising the administration and the conduct of the Executives through the Minister. What the Minister has now said leads to the opposite conclusion. Before we part with this Amendment, we should hear more from the Minister, or, if he has exhausted his right to speak, then we should hear something from the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Minister may have exhausted his right to speak, but the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have not, and this matter is of such grave importance that we ought not to leave it where it is. If the House is to lose its right to criticise the administration of the railways—a right we have enjoyed in a fair measure under the Railway Control Agreement—then we shall have come to a pretty pass.

Mr. C. Williams: This discussion seems to be getting interesting. The Minister condescended to tell us that he will appoint members of the Executives by Ministerial order. That means that we shall have no proper say in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that if it was done' this way the House would have a better chance of questioning the Minister. But why not go a little further? Instead of doing this by Ministerial order, let it be done by an Order which must be laid on the Table, which can be prayed against if necessary? We should then have some say whether the Executives are suitable or not. It should be made clear what type of appointments will be made, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will want to know what salaries will be paid. I could wish that the Minister would reply himself on this point, and not leave it to his next but two neighbour on his right, who is sound asleep.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I want to appeal to the Minister to let the House of Commons have a say in this matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) put the point clearly when he said that so far as he could see nobody would have any control over, or say in, the appointment of the Executives. We are entitled to know who is responsible.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 117.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[12.45 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Baird J
Binns, J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Balfour, A.
Blackburn, A. [...]


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Blenkinsop, A


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Barton, C.
Blyton, W. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Battley, J. R.
Boardman, H.


Alpass. J H
Bechervaise, A. E
Bottomley, A. G


Attewell, H. C
Berry, H.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Beswick, F.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Bacon, Miss A
Bing, G. H. C.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl Exch'ge)




Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holman, P.
Price, M. Philips


Bramall, E. A.
Homes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D N.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
House, G.
Proctor, W. T


Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)
Hoy, J.
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hubbard, T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bruce, Maj. D. W T
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E


Burden, T. W
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J


Burke, W A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverh'pton, W.)
Rankin J


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Reeves, J.


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Carmichael, James
Irving, W. J.
Rhodes, H.


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Ridealgh, Mrs M


Chetwynd, G. R
Jay, D. P. T.
Robens, A


Cobb, F. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Coldrick, W
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Collick, P.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Royle, C.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

Sargood, R.


Collins, V J
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Soollan, T


Colman, Miss G. M
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kenyon, C.
Sharp, Granville


Cook, T F.
King, E. M.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Corbet, Mrs F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Shurmer, P.


Corlett, Dr. J
Kinley, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cove, W. G.
Lang, G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Crawley, A.
Lavers, S.
Simmons. C J


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington, A. M


Dagger, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Gannock)
Skinnard, F. W


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leonard, W
Smith, C (Colchester)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Levy, B. W
Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Solley, L. J


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Stephen, C.


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Diamond, J.
Longden, F.
Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N.)


Dobbie, W.
Lyne, A. W.
Stubbs, A E


Dodds, N. N.
McAdam, W.
Swingler, S


Driberg, T. E. N.
McAllister, G
Sylvester, G. O


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Symonds, A. L


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
McKinlay, A. S
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McLeavy, F
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mellalieu, J. P. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Tiffany, S.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Timmons, J.


Ewart, R.
Mathers, G.
Tolley, L.


Fairhurst, F.
Madland, H. M.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Farthing, W. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Meager, F
Osborne, Henry


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington. E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Follick, M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R
Wallace, C. D. (Chislehurst)


Foot, M. M
Mitchison, G. R.
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow. W
Warbey, W. N


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Watkins, T. E


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R
Watson, W. M.


Gallacher, W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffie[...] C.)
Weitzman. D


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Morris, P. (Swansea W.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)



Gibbins, J.
Moyle, A
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Gibson, C. W
Murray, J. D
West, D. G.


Gilzean, A.
Nally, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Wigg, Col. G E.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B


Grierson, E.
O'Brien, T
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gunter, R. J.
Palmer, A M. F
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Guy, W H.
Pargtter, G. A
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Parkin, B. T
Willis, E.


Hall, W. G.
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushciiff[...]
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paton, J (Norwich)
Wise, Major F. J


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pearl, Cap. T. F.
Wyatt, W.


Hardy, E. A.
Platts-Mills, J. F. E
Yates, V. F


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Popplewell, E.



Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Daines.


Hobson, C. R.









NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nicholson, G.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Grant, Lady
Nield, B. (Chester)


Amory, D Heathcoat
Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Anderson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Grimston, R. V.
Nutting, Anthony


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E
Haughton, S. G.
Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)



Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Renton, D.


Beechman, N. A
Hollis, M. C
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bowen, R
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Byers, Frank
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray),


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H N

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F



Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Vane, W. M. F.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Wadsworth, G.


Digby, S. W.
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Wheatley. Colonel M. J


Drayson, G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Williams, C (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Foster, J G. (Northwich)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Fraser H C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.



Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Gage, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, to leave out "obligations."
In Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) pointed out that the words "obligations and liabilities" were used in this Bill in many places, whereas in the Electricity Bill the word "liabilities" alone had been used. In order to make the two Bills similar, we have put down a number of Amendments to take out the word "obligations" wherever the words "obligations and liabilities" appear. It it little more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made; In page 7, line 34, leave out "obligations."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Consultative Committees.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(5) A person who is appointed a member of a Committee established under this section shall not by reason, of his appointment be disqualified for being elected to, or for sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament.


This Amendment raises a very interesting issue, and I should be glad to observe and receive the reactions of the House towards this proposal. Hon. Members are aware that at the beginning of this Parliament, we had one or two instances of Members who were serving on bodies which, upon their election to this House, were ruled to be offices of profit under the Crown, and this necessitated Parliament having, first, to annul the disqualification, and, subsequently, to indemnify them for the penalties which their unconscious actions had brought upon them. I do not desire this Amendment to be interpreted as an intention to appoint Members of Parliament to these Consultative Committees, but at the same time, if this Amendment is accepted, it would mean that Members of Parliament would not of necessity be ruled out from being members of the Consultative Committees. The real purpose I have in mind is to benefit by the experience that we have had, and to make the necessary provision in the Bill so that if at any time any person who is a member of a Consultative Committee should be elected to the House of Commons, then the Act of Secession of the 18th


Century, which still appears to govern some of our actions and decisions with rather unpleasant results, will be nullified in this case. That is the purpose of the Amendment. It is really promoted as protection against occurrences similar to those we experienced in the past rather than as an indication of an intention to go out of our way to appoint Members of Parliament to these Consultative Committees.
1.0 a.m.
On the other hand, I want to make it plain to hon. Members that, if this Amendment is accepted, they would be eligible if any Minister desired to appoint a Member of Parliament to one of these Consultative Committees. But, that being the case, I think it is necessary for me to complete my remarks by emphasising that the Consultative Committees would not represent the type of appointment from which Parliament usually excludes Members of this House. We must bear in mind that the Consultative Committees would not be responsible for any operation of these transport services. They would be representing the interests of the users, whether they are trading users or the general public. So, in this case, I have no doubt that I would be justified in proceeding along these lines, if this commends itself to Members of the House. It seems to me that the duties of a member of a Consultative Committee are very similar, in the broadest sense, to the duties of a Member of this House, namely to look after the interests of the State and of the public, and particularly of the public of the locality which he represents. In my submission this is a question for the consideration of the House.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would like to give my personal view that I see no objection to this at all. I think that the main point which the Minister has made—and it is one of considerable importance—is that there may well be members of these Committees who have done good work and have gained experience in regard to the working of the Committees and who are then elected to this House. In these circumstances, I would be sorry to see the Committees deprived of such members. Looking at it from the point of view of this House, I do not think that appointment to such Committees in any way would lead to the sort of mischief that the legislation and rules against offices of profit have regard to. My own view, as the right hon.

Gentleman knows, has always been that these Committees are not a strong enough support to the consumers' point of view. He and I discussed that matter in the Committee stage, and although we differed on it, he knows, I think, that I want to see these Committees strengthened. Therefore, as I do not think it comes within the evil from the point of view of this House, I hope it will not be too much for the modesty of members of this House if I say that it would strengthen the Committees to have the right to call upon Members of this House to serve upon them. I do not in any way object to the Amendment.

Major Peter Roberts: I rise only to refer to one sentence which the Minister used towards the end of his speech. It was that a member might be able to represent the locality from which he came. If that is the idea, I think it is dangerous. A Member of Parliament will be put on to a Committee in the capacity of a national servant; but if it is going to be suggested that he must represent his own locality, it might have the corollary that if he does not do so, he is not carrying out his job properly. That would be rather dangerous. I would not like it to go out from this House that there is any suggestion that hon. Members who may be put on to a Committee are to represent their localities in that work. I think it would be better for hon. Members to direct their activities to the higher authority of this House.
I do not think that it is really right and proper that an hon. Member of this House, as such, should be asked to serve on one of these, so to speak, "lower authorities." I have heard it said from both sides of this House, and especially from the other side, that Members of Parliament have a full time job, and plenty of work to do. I do not like the idea of putting further work on them. We have to remember that this is only one Bill. Nationalisation seems to be stretching far and wide, and hon. Members are going to be very busy on consultative committees of various kinds, and I do hope that the Minister will say he does not intend this.

Mr. Barnes: I thank hon. Members for drawing my attention to the careless wording. It is a careless use of the word "represent" and I should like to withdraw it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 9, line 42, after "consider", to insert:
and, where it appears to the Committee to he necessary, make recommendations in regard to.
This Amendment is designed to strengthen the position of the Consultative Committees. I think that the Minister would agree that under Subsection (6) there is an implication that the Committees should make recommendations, but we feel that it ought to be made quite clear that there is a positive responsibility on the Committees to make recommendations. I am very anxious, as I have made clear, to do everything to strengthen the position of these Committees, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment with that object in view.

Mr. Barnes: I am informed that this is an excellent piece of drafting on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am pleased to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, to leave out from the second "the," to "with," in line 21, and to insert:
Minister may give such directions to the Commission.
This, and the following Amendment, are really consequential on a principle which I have already explained. There are other similar consequential ones, and I think that there is no need for me to explain them at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 23, leave out from "fit," to the end of line 24, and insert:
and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:
The Central Transport Consultative Committee shall make an annual report to the Minister, and the Minister shall lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament.
This carries out an undertaking given during the Committee stage that the Central Transport Consultative Committee should make an annual report to the Minister, who should lay a copy before both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, after "Committee," to insert:
allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time in accordance with a scale approved by the Minister and the Treasury and
This Amendment will permit of payments to be made to the members of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for loss of time when serving on the Committee. I have indicated on more than one occasion that it is desirable that these Committees should be fully representative of the life and interests of their fellows. I feel the Minister should have the opportunity of drawing upon the services of anyone who can perform that function and that there should be no restriction on the area of choice by reason of the difficulty of any person whose livelihood or loss of wages might cause him to think twice before accepting such an appointment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Acquisition by Commission of undertakings by agreement.)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page II, line 6, to leave out "liabilities and obligations," and to insert "and liabilities."

This is another consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page line 11, at the end, to insert:
Provided that any such regulations shall not adversely affect the users of transport.
We are dealing with Clause 7 which deals with the acquisition by the Commission of certain undertakings by agreement. The point I have to make is, I am glad to say, a very short one. Under this Clause arrangements are made whereby the Commission can take over a transport undertaking. In Subsection (2) the relevant words are:
Where any such agreement is made, the Minister may make regulations … and any such regulations … may adapt, modify or repeal any statutory provision, contract or document relating to the undertaking or persons theretofore carrying it on, and may make such transitional provision in connection with the transfer as the Minister may think necessary or expedient.
Those are sweeping words and while it may be convenient for the Minister to be able to repeal any statutory provision or contract or document, and it might conceivably be convenient to an undertak-


ing, there are such people as those who use transport who might be considered. It may be that some of the users have contracts with these undertakings which certainly should not be abolished or swept away by Ministerial regulation when the Minister thinks it necessary or expedient. Equally, it may be that there are some contracts between undertakings and the staff and I think those contracts ought to be considered rather carefully There is no provision here, as there is sometimes in such cases, that a contract be done away with if not entered into for the genuine purpose of business. These may be taken away if they are not "necessary or expedient." It seems to us on this side of the House that those are powers which should not be extended to any Government in this country. It seems to us those are powers which ought not to be issued to any Government and we therefore suggest that the following words should be inserted:
Provided that any such regulations shall not adversely affect the users of transport

1.15 a.m.

Brigadier Mackeson: Throughout the consideration of the Bill there has been a certain amount of argument between the Government and Members of the Committee as to what should or should not be put into the actual wording of the Bill. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in the House that the view of users and the importance which must be attached to users must be given due consideration. It seems to us the Minister and the Commission have a great deal of power, and although we may reasonably assume that they will behave in a sensible manner, it would be desirable and helpful to the Commission and future Ministers if these words were put in. At the moment it seems to us that users' views may not be regarded with as much attention as they should be. It seems to us that as the Clause is drafted the whole question is dealt with simply as one between the Government and the Commission and users' views receive no insistence or importance of any sort. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept the words as drafted or to say at a later stage he will he able to accept some similar Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The purpose of Clause 7 is to enable the Commission to take over by agreement any other statu-

tory transport authority which it wants to take over, and if the Commission does that, of course, there will be a number of statutory provisions and contracts in existence which will have to be dealt with in order to enable the transfer to take place, and any duties and responsibilities and liabilities which were on the statutory body would be placed in future on the Commission. This Subsection says that the Minister may make regulations to enable such statutory provisions to be repealed as may be necessary and the responsibility placed on the Commission. The Amendment suggests that no such transfer should take place unless there is an assurance that users of transport are not going to be adversely affected by transfer from the statutory body to the Commission.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not want to misinterpret what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Where contracts have been entered into by the undertaking and the users it seems to us that before a contract is abolished by Ministerial regulation the user, who after all is party to the contract, should have an opportunity of being consulted and certainly his interests should be safeguarded. This does not affect the transfer at all.

Mr. Strauss: Subsection (3) does protect any named individual who has some special advantage under an existing contract or arrangement with a statutory undertaking and completely protects any named person or body from any damage which might arise from transfer: yes, quite definitely.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Statutory only, not contract.

Mr. Strauss: I think if the hon. Member will read Subsection (3) he will see that no named person can be adversely affected by the repeal of any statutory provision to which the Minister may agree. Plainly, if there is any statutory provision affecting the named person that named person will be completely safeguarded. What the hon. Member seeks to provide here is that users of transport generally shall not be adversely affected by any transfer of the statutory provision to the Commission. My reply to that is that, first of all, the way in which the Commission uses some new transport service which it takes over must be for the Commission to decide and the Commission has to act the whole time within the general


directions and duties placed upon it under Clause 3, which says that the Commission shall provide
an efficient, adequate economical and properly integrated system.
It is not possible for the Minister to say, "Well now, look here, I am not going to agree to this transfer because it may be that the users of transport as a result are going to be adversely affected". I think that that is quite unreasonable. The Commission takes it over presumably because it wants to run an efficient and adequate transport service; it should not be run by some other statutory body but by the Commission, and the Commission will run it in the general interests of the public, trying to give as efficient a service as possible. For those reasons, I think it would be unreasonable for the Minister to withhold his consent because he fears the Commission in future, when it takes control and is responsible, will run services not in the interest of the transport user.

Mr. Poole: The point is much narrower than that made by the hon. Gentleman. If the Amendment is slightly unclear perhaps we could alter it. Surely, the point is that it is the named person who is affected under the contract or document. I agree that the statutory provision is covered under Subsection (3) but that does not cover the individual, whoever he may be. The question of transfer is not affected at all, and that is the only point of the Amendment, a much narrower point.

Mr. Linstead: May I emphasise that point? If one reads Subsections (2) and (3) together, the implication seems to be that the contract or document, which is designed for the protection or for the benefit of the named person, can be upset by regulation made by the Minister to the detriment of the person named in the contract or document. Can he explain why the contract or document are mentioned in Subsection (2) and are specifically left out of Subsection (3)?

Sir J. Mellor: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) has a very important point here in regard to the repeal of the contracts because although Parliament is given supervision over regulations by Clause 115 and the regulations can be

annulled within 40 days, it is provided that, although the regulations shall thereupon cease to have effect, that shall be so without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. That would mean that the measure of supervision of Parliament would have no application at all to a contract which had already been repealed by the Minister, and the protection thus provided by Clause 115 is really of no value at all in so far as it concerns contracts repealed by the Minister and, therefore, I think the hon. Member has a very sound point.

Mr. Byers: I wish to make one point arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. He said that the duty of the Commission was to provide an efficient and integrated service. One of the tests of efficiency in this connection is that they should consider the interests of the users of transport. If we intend to safeguard the interests of users of transport under this Subsection, then why not say so? If we do not intend to safeguard their interests, then this matter is worth further discussion, because the whole of the system we are setting up is designed to serve the interests of users of transport. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is something in this point: there should be further discussion and an Amendment included here or in another place.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The point which has been put by hon. Members opposite is, I gather, that they are not quite satisfied that the right of named persons is properly safeguarded, where the named person has some right as a result of a contract, but not as a statutory provision. I must agree, looking at this Clause carefully, that it is a possibility. I will undertake to look into the matter, and if it is so, we will see whether it can be remedied. We had meant to put it right when we made the Amendment in Committee, but it is possible that the point has not been fully covered.

Mr. Byers: Can we now have another assurance that this Bill will be looked at again? This is about the second or third thing which has cropped up, and there are 35 Clauses which have not yet been discussed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I would remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with this Amendment, and not with the whole Bill.

Mr. Byers: I would point out that this is a matter which will affect hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so,. but it has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In view of the assurance the Parliamentary Secretary has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Compulsory purchase of land.)

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, in page II, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(except section two thereof).
Members will remember that, during the Committee stage, the question was raised whether it was necessary to incorporate in the Bill the powers under Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946. This Section gives to local authorities the power of quick entry into land which they require for urgent purposes. I stated at the time that I very much doubted whether such powers were wanted by the Transport Commission, and that I would look into the matter, and, that if I found they were not necessary, I would move an Amendment on Report stage. We have accordingly looked into the matter, and we are satisfied that the Commission does not want the powers. We therefore move this Amendment to delete them.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page II, line 30, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved by the proposal to purchase any land compulsorily on the ground that such land belongs to him and forms an essential part of the premises upon which he carries on a trade or business and was acquired in relation thereto he may within twenty-eight days from the date on which he receives notice of the proposal to purchase such land compulsorily make an application to the High Court and the Court may if in its opinion it is unreasonable in the circumstances that such land should be compulsorily acquired direct that it should not be so acquired.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will also consider that this Amendment is a reasonable safeguard in the case of compulsory purchase. I would remind the House of the words in the Amendment, which is rather long. As a proviso

to the compulsory purchase Section, it provides:
that if any person is aggrieved by the proposal to purchase any land compulsorily"—
I invite the attention of the House to the next words, which are really the gist of the matter:
on the ground that such land belongs to him and forms an essential part of the premises upon which he carries on a trade or business and was acquired in relation thereto.
The House will appreciate the importance of that, and that land must be an essential part of the premises on which the objector carries on his trade or business and must have been acquired in relation to his trade or business. One knows and appreciates that on the actual land on which a factory or some other kind of business may be operating there is very often a piece of land which has been purchased with a view to extension, which is hoped for in a reasonably short time. It is that sort of land which we have in mind in the case of this Amendment.
Again, I stress the fact that it must not only be related to the business, but it must have been acquired in relation to the business. It has been emphasised, time and time again, that the Transport Commission is going to be a great trading body, a public corporation acting as a trader, and, of course, there are provisions in the Bill for the way that business is to be run and how the accounts are to be kept; and we have had an assurance as to the efficient management of the concern. Our point is that, if there is a trading corporation which might have a garage near by or something of that sort, it would be rather hard if it unduly pressed the owner to give up, under these compulsory acquisition powers, land which he was using for his business. We suggest in those circumstances the matter might be left to the arbitrament of the High Court, and if the Court is of opinion that it is unreasonable in the circumstances that such land should be compulsorily acquired, then it should not be acquired.
My experience in the matter—and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. and right hon. Friends opposite would differ from me in this—is that in the case of these compulsory purchase orders one looks at the position created by the terms of the order and broadly at the hardship on the person whose land is


affected, particularly the question of financial hardship, which is not taken into account at all. The matter which is really considered at public inquiries on compulsory purchase is whether it comes within the purview of the Statute which gives the right to acquire land or not. We say here that there are special circumstances. While that state of affairs might apply between the local authority purchasing for its purposes and the person who is here affected, we have what ought to be considered is a trading corporation, a body that is being operated as a trading corporation, compulsorily acquiring land from another trader. In those circumstances we think that the traders ought to have certain rights. We have tried to suggest a method for those rights to be determined, namely, by application to the High Court. For those reasons, I submit the Amendment to the House.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Digby: There is no doubt that the most objectionable feature of the application of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, to this particular Bill has been removed by the concession which the Minister has just made, because the application of the "speedy procedure" would have been particularly onerous in cases under this Bill. Nevertheless, there is still a wide field for abuse, and when the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and I raised the question of the application of this Act to the Bill in the Committee upstairs the Minister of Transport found some difficulty in showing in what kind of cases they were going to use these powers. When we suggested that perhaps it was land for new hotels to be run by the railways, we were told that they would not be needed for that. In the end we found that the fact of the matter was that they were going to acquire land for the building of new garages for the new road haulage undertaking.
That is where we are likely to get into some difficulties because the land or premises that will be required for those purposes will almost always be in some town or other and often land which belongs to some other trading organisation. That will mean using powers for acquisition of land which were given to local authorities and Government Departments for their own requirements for commercial purposes, and there is the

further possibility that the Commission may use those powers against competitors. There might easily be a case of a Naboth's vineyard. There will be excellent garages which will not be taken over by the Commission because the bulk of the business carried out from them is short-distance traffic. We have to be sure that there are no abuses of that kind and I very much hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman who moved it can be surprised at our decision, because he must realise that the proposal now put forward introduces an entirely novel principle into the basis of land acquisition and one which has not been accepted or used by this country as long as the principle of compulsory purchase has been in operation. What he suggests, in fact, is that where an individual has acquired land and used it for his trade or business and wants to retain for himself, then the Commission shall have no compulsory power of acquisition. I suggest that if that principle is to be injected into our compulsory acquisition procedure, then I think there should be general legislation on this matter, and it would be quite wrong to confine it to this Bill.
If this principle were accepted there would have to be similar Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill which is now before Parliament, because under that Bill the Commission would have the power to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1946. It is entirely wrong to say that the Commission, which is a public body charged with certain public duties and responsibilities which Parliament says must be carried out, and is in that respect in the same position as a local authority, should be prevented from carrying out its duties properly because it has no adequate powers of land acquisition. Therefore, any restrictions which are unreasonable and unwise must be prevented. Moreover, I suggest that the acquisition of land and the use of land is a planning matter and it is wholly unsuitable for a decision by the High Court. The High Court should not and cannot be the proper authority to say whether a piece of land is to be used by the Transport Commission for the extension of transport services or


is to be retained by a private individual for his own purposes. Never before has it been suggested that the High Court could possibly be the authority in matters of this kind. This is a problem which is completely an administrative planning matter, and I suggest that it is entirely wrong to bring the courts into it. In fact, if we did we should have to introduce at the same time a general revision of our land acquisition legislation, and the matter cannot be brought in as a sidewind in the manner proposed here.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman has staged a counter-attack upon our Amendment without saying a word in defence of the position which we ourselves attacked. I am by no means a legal expert and I do not know whether he is right or wrong on the question of whether this is the proper procedure. But my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a legal expert, drafted the Amendment in conjunction with his hon. Friends, and presumably they know as much about it from that point of view as does the hon. Gentleman himself. However, I am not concerned with that particular dispute. What I am concerned with is that the Government has nothing whatever to say about the position we ourselves attacked.
The suggestion has been made that there might be a garage in a small town which is staffed with the cars of "C" licence holders. Along comes the Transport Commission and uses this Clause in order compulsorily to acquire that land That is a very unfortunate situation and I cannot believe that the Government are perpared to leave matters in that state. Have they no suggestions to safeguard the people concerned?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I point out to the noble Lord that any compulsory land acquisition Order must be confirmed by the Minister after inquiry.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The words "the Minister" mean nothing to me at all. He is part and parcel of this whole mammoth scheme. He approves the whole of it, loves compulsory acquisition, and is only too glad to see "C" licence holders eliminated in order that this great thing can be all-embracing. The Minister did mention something about the question of a local public inquiry. There might be some solution in that, although I think

it might be merely an opportunity of letting off steam for both sides. After all, we have a local public inquiry coming off into the acquisition of land by the War Office for training troops, and no one has any faith in that. But there is, perhaps, something in it, if the Minister would look at it again and introduce appropriate words in another place.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am bound to say that I think that the argument which the Parliamentary Secretary addressed to this House was the most astonishing one. An Amendment is moved and argued from this side suggesting that in certain circumstances a British subject with some quarrel with the Crown or with this powerful Commission should have an appeal to the High Court. The Parliamentary Secretary says that that is a most novel principle in English law. I do not think that the right of a British subject to go to a court of justice is a novel principle at all. It is one which we have maintained in this country for a very long time, and it would be a pity to see it abandoned. In any event, why should novelty deter the present Government? There are quite a lot of novel things in this Bill. It is quite a novel idea that a man who is running a perfectly reputable business should have it taken out of his hands and run by somebody else. Talking of novelty I should have thought that we had quite enough of it already.
Let me examine the defence which the Parliamentary Secretary puts forward. He said that this is a planning matter. Apparently, if it is a planning matter that will make it quite all right. He said that there are no difficulties at all. Of course, it is not a planning matter. It is not the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, or anybody else, who will authorise this purchase. It is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport who will authorise it, and he says that in some circumstances there may be a right of some local inquiry. Where is the appeal from that? The appeal is back to the right hon. Gentleman who authorised the purchase. What possible satisfaction is that likely to give to anybody?
1.45 a.m.
I would like to emphasise the importance of this Amendment to the class of people with whom we are concerned here. The purchasers are the principal competitors, or may well be, of the man whose


property is being expropriated. Suppose that there is a garage which is housing a certain number of vehicles of a private trader. As far as I can understand it, under the terms of this Clause the right hon. Gentleman, or the Commission with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, can come along to their competitors and say, "Of course, you can go on competing, but we want the main part of your property upon which you depend in order to make your competition effective." They can remove from the private trader the very tools of his trade. In those circumstances, I should have thought it was of very little use appealing back to the Commission or to the Minister. In those circumstances I should have thought that the only hope a man in such a position would have would be to go to some independent tribunal, and the best independent tribunal we have in this country is a court of justice.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Like my hon. Friends who have spoken, I found the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary on this important matter both cursory and unsatisfactory. He complained that the procedure envisaged in this Amendment is something new in planning law. It is not entirely new in planning law, because, of course, on certain points of law there has always been recourse to the courts, even in planning law. But the argument which he has adduced is, of course, related to quite a different conception of the compulsory acquisition of land than that which is dealt with in Clause 8 of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman based his case on the contention that the Commission should be placed in the same position as a local authority, and that they should have the same powers as a local authority in regard to the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes; but the reason there has not been more judicial restraint upon the powers of compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities in the various Statutes which, together, make up the planning law of this country is, of course, precisely because those powers were given to local authorities; that is to say, the democratically elected bodies who are normally concerned with the compulsory acquisition of land of people who, in fact, are voters, with a right of voting for those local authorities.
There was, therefore, a democratic and political sanction. So long as that sanction is operative, you do not require to the same extent the sanction of restraint and supervision by the law courts. But what has happened in planning law in the last eighteen months, under the administration of the present Government, has been a continual adding of Government Departments to the ranks of those in whom are vested rights of compulsory acquisition of land. This Clause proposes to take that one step further by giving these rights to the Transport Commission. It is because the circumstances are really so very far different from those on which our planning law was built up in respect of compulsory acquisition by local authorities that my right hon. and learned Friend has seen fit to move this Amendment, proposing a rather different sort of procedure from that which is normally found in our planning law. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have seen fit to introduce a new system, and the right then does not lie with them to complain that my right hon. Friend is seeking new remedies to check new abuses. One was to refer such matters to a public local inquiry. It is the habit of right hon. and hon. Members opposite when dialectically cornered in these matters, as the hon. Gentleman was dialectically cornered in the Committee stage of this particular Bill on which he is now relying—there are many hon. Members who remember that particular occasion very well—promptly to fall back upon a provision for a public local inquiry in the case of objection being raised. But what is the value of a public local inquiry which, after all, is held by a Departmental inspector and in fact has no sanction at all, because the inquiry simply results in a report to the Minister, who considers, not judicially, but administratively, the report of that inquiry, and takes action, or does not take action at all. It is a most threadbare reason to advance against this Amendment. The arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman are a travesty, and are not related to the system which he is seeking to set up by this Bill. I hope that the House will say that some safeguard is necessary to prevent this growing abuse of departmental and bureaucratic power for the compulsory acquisition of land.

Mr. Mitchison: I shall not take up the time of the House for long, but I suggest


that this Amendment would put the High Court into a wholly impossible position. They would be asked to decide what was reasonable or unreasonable between the public claims and the public duties of the Commission, on the one hand, and the private rights and private duties of some citizen, on the other. There is no indication of what the test of reasonableness is to be in those circumstances, and no court would know where to begin, or upon what sort of test it was to found its decision, if this kind of case were brought before it. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to the Amendment. But I should like to add that, in fact, no purchase of this sort can be made without rather more than the usual safeguards. In addition to the usual provisions regarding compulsory purchase orders, the Minister has to authorise the purchase himself, and to make the purchase, and of course he is answerable to this House for the authority exercised in that respect. I suggest that there is already a proper safeguard—the only safeguard which can be given in these cases— and that this is a subversive attempt to put on to the High Court an ill-defined responsibility which I am certain the judges themselves would refuse to accept, if they were able to do so.

Mr. Renton: With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), 'I would say that the High Court has very frequently been asked by Parliament to decide a lot of difficult questions. That, after all, is what the High Court is for. I suggest, however, that the question which the High Court would be asked to decide in such cases is not really such a difficult one. It is a question of reasonableness such as the courts are being asked to decide almost every day. I seek your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on my next point, because it is a point which has arisen only since the Committee stage was concluded, and I am not certain whether I should raise it now on this Amendment, or on the Question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. But, if I might develop my argument, I would say 'briefly that the position is that, under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, mentioned in this Clause, the 1939 valuation is the basis of the computation. I was not a Member of the Committee on the

Town and Country Planning Bill, but I understand that the whole use of the 1939 valuation is being changed and I would appreciate an explanation about this, in relation to the Transport Bill. Is the 1939 valuation to be retained in this, while in the Town and Country Planning Measure it is to be departed from?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has developed his point and he is quite clearly out of Order.

Mr. Renton: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your Ruling. I was seeking a Ruling, and I now appreciate that the matter is one which could better be raised on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that on the Report stage the Question "That the Clause stand part" is not put.

Mr. Renton: There is another reason why it seems to me we should not leave Clause 8 exactly as it is at the moment. Under Clause 46 (2) people who have their businesses compulsorily taken over will receive compensation on the basis of the amount which the property would fetch, if sold in the open market and that property may well include land because a number of garages will be acquired under this system. On the other hand, in Clause 8, we find that other people— people whose businesses are not being acquired but whose land is being acquired, quite apart from any such consideration—will have their compensation on the 1939 valuation. These different forms of compensation for land appear in this same Bill, and I think that we are entitled to an explanation. This distinction also gives weight to the point raised by my hon. Friend that this matter should be referred to the High Court. The High Court would be able to sort out the matter better than any other body. I do not know if the learned Solicitor-General can give an answer straight away, but the matter should not be abandoned without some statement.

It being Two o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Chester, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Lewes, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of 'State for the Home Department, extending

Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Stourbridge, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Newmarket, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th April, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute past Two o'Clock.